I LiBKARY OF CONGRESS, i 

i = r— ♦ 

! ♦ 

J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, J 



* 



A TREATISE 

ON 

MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY; 

OR, 

MERCERSBURG AND MODERN THEOLOGY 
COMPARED. 

BY 

SAMUEL MILLER. 




PHILADELPHIA: 

Published by S. R. FISHER & Co., 54 North Sixth Street. 
1866. 



^1 



CONTENTS: 

PAGE. 



Introduction 11 

CHAPTER I. 

£ 1. Anthropology 17 

2. Central Idea 19 

3. The Person op Christ 21 

4. The Incarnation 22 

5. Redemption 23 

6. Hypostatical Union 23 

7. The Life of Christ 24 

8. Imputation 25 

CHAPTER II. 

9. The Atonement , sa » 8 ,. 26 

10. Justification 33 

11. Regeneration 35 

12. The New Creation 37 

13. The Body of Christ 42 

CHAPTER III. 

14. The Sacraments. 47 

15. The Organic Law of Christianity 43 

16. The Church as an Object of Faith 54 

17. The Church and the Reformation 54 

18. Romanizing Tendency 56 



4 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER IV. page. 
g 19. The Office of the Ministry 58 

20. Objective Faith.— -The Creed 63 

CHAPTER, V. 

21. The Rule of Faith 68 

22. The Sacred Scriptures 71 

23. Subjective Faith 74 

CHAPTER VI. 

24. On the Nature of Evidences 79 

CHAPTER VII. 

25. The Pulpit. — Preaching 96 

26. The Altar.— Worship 99 

27. The Keys. — Discipline 101 

28. Confirmation 103 

29. The Witness of the Spirit 106 

CHAPTER VIII. 

30. The Doctrine of the Trinity 109 

31. The Distinct Personalities. — The Eternal Son- 

ship 114 

32. The Trinity and the Church 119 

33. The Church of the Future 122 

Notes 125 



PREFACE. 



i. 

The want of a Church literature of our own, has 
long since been felt, and become a matter of deep 
concern. There are good reasons why this feeling 
should exist in the German Reformed Church, and 
should make itself heard and understood. It means 
something more than a desire simply for books writ- 
ten by ministers of our own Church. It is a longing 
for more, in the various departments of religious 
literature, of that better nature and quality, which 
can alone be produced by that peculiar mode of 
thinking, which underlies our distinctive theology. 
That is what the feeling means and wants, if rightly 
interpreted. 

If we were of the same mind with other surround- 
ing denominations, the case would be different. 
There would then be little room or occasion for such 
a feeling. We could conveniently supply ourselves 



6 



PREFACE. 



from the abundant store that others have furnished. 
But we cannot be satisfied with what is thus offered 
to us; nor remain indifferent to the imperative duty 
that calls upon us to furnish our people and their 
children with a different kind of literature. We 
honestly and sincerely believe the teachings of our 
own theology, and are convinced that the prevailing 
religious literature of the day is unsuited to our 
wants, because of its rationalistic elements, calcu- 
lated to enervate and undermine a sound religious 
faith. That is putting the true state of the case in 
few words. 

II. 

We here offer an humble contribution to our de- 
nominational literature. It is designed, indirectly, 
to deepen and widen the feeling referred to : to show 
how truly we stand in need of something better and 
sounder, than is offered us by most of our modern 
writers. Those who had fondly hoped that the 
Church had again settled down to the comfortable 
conviction, that, after all, there was not much, if any, 
essential difference between our Mercersburg theology 
and the prevailing popular theology of the day, were 
slightly mistaken. 



PREFACE. 



7 



To dispel this notion, if it really existed to any ex- 
tent, and to bring the subject fresh in review before 
the mind of the Church, we felt induced to write out 
a clear, condensed and convincing statement of the 
manifold and important points of difference between 
the two systems referred to. 

To do this successfully, so as to present the whole 
in one comprehensive view to the popular mind, and 
carry conviction at every point, was not an easy task* 
but required much labor in the way of condensing a 
great deal that would otherwise have filled a much 
larger volume, but at the expense of the particular de- 
sign we had in view. A larger book, or a book encum- 
bered with notes and quotations, would not have an- 
swered our purpose to preserve clearly and uninter- 
ruptedly the train of thought that connects the va- 
rious important subjects discussed. If we have suc- 
ceeded in awakening a desire for more, our object is 
gained, and that more will yet be abundantly fur- 
nished, by other and abler writers. 

III. 

What of Mercersburg and Modern theology is pre- 
sented in these pages, is given as it appeared to 



s 



PREFACE, 



our mind in the course of our reading and studying 
for the last twenty years. We hold no one but our- 
self responsible for what may be peculiar in their sub- 
jective apprehension and reproduction. But we are 
not aware that we have misconstrued or misrepre- 
sented the one or the other at a single point. The 
attempt to fix such a charge on our production, es- 
pecially in reference to modern theology, when it first 
appeared in a series of articles in the German Re- 
formed Messenger, is admitted on all sides to 
have proved a signal failure. 

The point at which our treatise is open to attack, 
we are told, lies in the use of the term modern 
theology; which some suppose to be too general 
and indefinite, implying more than we intend to ex- 
press, and is, therefore, liable to misapprehension. 
It was accordingly suggested to us to define it more 
explicitly in the sense we use it, to avoid future 
misunderstandings. 

It is true, "Modern Theology," like so many other 
modern-isms, has not been strictly defined by any 
previous writer; nor do we think that its friends and 
admirers would care to have it too strictly defined. 
It is apt to be stripped of its " glittering generali- 



PREFACE. 



9 



ties," by the glamor of which it has found such 
general favor. Its strict definition, moreover, in- 
volves the principal issue between it and that theo- 
logy with which it is here contrasted. But as we 
use the term, for the sake of brevity, rather freely, 
it may be well enough to explain in the outset more 
distinctly the sense in which it occurs in our book. 

IV. 

To relieve the minds of all whom it may concern, 
we would say, then, in the first place, that those who 
do not hold, expressly or impliedly, the peculiar 
views we ascribe to modern theology, need not 
allow their equanimity to be disturbed. If they 
themselves are very clear on this point, then we beg 
of them to be well assured that we do not mean them 
or their theology, whatever it may be, or however 
they may choose to call it. But a great deal of the 
prevailing and reigning theology of the day, -as it 
meets us in every possible shape and form, does hold 
and teach, expressly or impliedly, the very things we 
designate as modern theology. This cannot be de- 
nied. It is too well known and understood by every 
body, to admit of a denial. 



10 



PREFACE. 



But why call it modern theology? For this 
reason: because it is, in its distinctive features, a 
modernism; modern in its origin and conception; in 
no true sympathy and connection with the ancient 
faith and teachings of the Church, and an actual de- 
parture from the confessional and theological posi- 
tion of the Reformation Churches. This is the sense 
in which we use it. Mercersburg theology, on the 
contrary, is a deeper and profounder apprehension^ 
and, therefore, vindication of, and not a departure 
from, the faith and doctrines of the ancient Church 
and the Reformation. This is the broad distinction 
between them on this point, as will appear more fully 
in the treatment of the several subjects, to which the 
reader's attention is directed in these pages. 

With this explanation we commend our book to a 
careful and thoughtful perusal, in the hope that it 
may prove a "source of sound instruction and real 
edification" to all into whose hands it may happen 
to fall. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Theology is a human science, treating of di- 
vine and supernatural things. It is, therefore, 
liable to fail in representing a full apprehension 
of the subject of which it treats, and to em- 
brace views and admit principles, which, when 
carried out to their logical consequences by 
merciless critics, are calculated to damao-e and 
undermine the very cause of truth, in whose in- 
terest and service they are supposed to stand. 
It is but, human to err, and when our theology, 
as a human science, is found to err, or to be 
defective, it is our duty to review it, and to re- 
produce it on more correct principles and a pro- 
founder apprehension of its doctrines. How 
this is to be done, is itself a point of difference, 
to which we may have occasion to refer. 



12 



INTRODUCTION. 



Roman Catholic Theology passed through 
this ordeal, and was subjected to a thorough re- 
view, the result of which is a deeper and pro- 
founder apprehension of the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity, as reproduced in what is known as Pro- 
testant theology, which is accepted by the most 
enlightened portion of Christendom. 

Protestant Theology, however, was not ex- 
empt from the same liability of failing to appre- 
hend fully the -system of doctrines, which it 
exhumed out of the accumulated errors of past 
ages, or at least to retain it pure and simple; 
and was subjected, especially in its modern ac- 
ceptation, to the most unmerciful criticism ot 
German rationalism and infidelity, which in- 
duced a theological struggle, such as the world 
had never witnessed before. It may well be 
called the life-struggle of theology for the entire 
Church, fought on the old battle-field of the 
Sixteenth Century, which resulted for the second 
time in a triumphant vindication of the truth ; 
but apprehended in a deeper and profounder 
sense than ever before. 



INTRODUCTION. 



13 



German Evangelical Theology, or theolo- 
gy as thus reproduced, and in part still in the 
act of being reproduced by the ablest and pro- 
foundest defenders of our holy Christianity the 
Church has ever produced, is Protestant still, 
over against the errors of Rome; but Catholic, 
at the same time, as embracing the whole truth 
as underlying the faith of the Church in all 
ages; and Evangelical, as doing full justice to 
the positive results of the Reformation. In 
Germany it is best known by what is called 
Evangelical Theology, being the product of the 
united Evangelical Church of that country, Re- 
formed and Lutheran. In this country it is best 
known as Mercersburg Theology; as the 
Theological Professors of the Seminary located 
there, were the first who reproduced it in this 
country to meet the wants especially of our 
own Modern Puritanic and prevailing English 
and American Theology. The philosophy 
which underlies it, is taught in Franklin and 
Marshall College, transferred from Mercersburg 
to Lancaster. 



14 



INTRODUCTION. 



Mercersburg and Modern Theology com- 
pared, form an intensely interesting subject. 
The difference between them, on almost every 
point of doctrine, is so broad and marked, as to 
be really startling, and withal of such vast im- 
portance as to challenge the serious attention of 
all, who are interested in the common cause of 
whic'h they treat. Being two broadly distinct 
systems throughout, proceeding from two en- 
tirely different modes of thinking, it is moreover 
impossible to accept both at the same time. We 
must either accept the one or the other exclu- 
sively, with all the logical consequences it in- 
volves. We cannot apply to Mercersburg theo- 
logy the eclectic mode of accepting a portion of 
it and rejecting others. The sooner this is un- 
derstood by the Reformed Church, in whose 
bosom it has found its home, the better it will 
be. To be consistent we must either give it up 
altogether, as a false and dangerous innovation 
throughout, or heartily embrace it as a whole, 
as the true sense and meaning of our own theo- 
logical position as a Church, to the exclusion 



INTRODUCTION. 



15 



entirely of the modern system, of which it is the 
direct opposite, so far as their distinctive fea- 
tures are concerned. We want more light on 
this subject, and more generally diffused among 
ministers and people. The subject has been 
brought in review before this; but at a time 
when discussion had excited the feelings and 
affected, perhaps, to a degree, the impartial and 
deliberate judgment of those who were interested 
in the subject. Let us see how Mercersburg 
and Modern theology compare, when viewed in 
the absence of all excitement in reference to it. 
Let us be fair and candid, and try to get at the 
truth for its own sake, and for the cause in 
which we are all equally interested. The brief 
comparison here attempted, makes of course no 
pretension to completeness, nor to any syste- 
matic arrangement, which is not necessary for 
our purpose, which is simply to present briefly 
the gist of their various points of difference. 



MERCERSBURG AND MODERN 



THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTER I. 




§ 1. — ANTHROPOLOGY. 

\ERCERSBURG theology has rejected 

as untenable the empiricism of Locke, 

which still underlies especially our 

English and American theologj, and 

which denies the existence of innate 

ideas, and asserts that all our ideas come from 

sensation and reflection; that is, have their 

ground and source outside of us. The mind, 

according to this theory, is constitutionally like 

a blank sheet of paper, in which there is no 

self-evolving power to originate an idea or 

thought, except what is impressed upon it from 

without, through the medium of our senses, and 
2 17 



18 



MERCERSBURG AND 



reproduced into complex forms by the power of 
reflection. There is, accordingly, no innate 
basis, grounded in our nature, on which the 
truth of the existence of things, spiritual and 
supernatural, can be based, but has to be es- 
tablished by outside evidences alone. Instead 
of this bald and superficial conception of the 
constitution of man's nature, the logical conse- 
quences of which lead to infidelity, the anthro- 
pological premises from which Mercersburg 
theology proceeds, is the Grod-consciousness in 
man, which is inherent in our nature, being 
self-evident, and requiring no proof. The con- 
sciousness of sin is equally innate and self-evi- 
dent. The consciousness of the need of redemp- 
tion, as growing out of these, is equally so. 
These self-evident truths, grounded in the proper 
self-consciousness of man himself, need not first 
be established by evidences or arguments de- 
rived from other premises, and these again from 
others, until you are driven back into intermi- 
nable perplexity and discomfiture by the sharp 
dialectician ; who justly demands self-evident or 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



19 



undeniable premises, from which you attempt to 
reason. This is one difference between the pre- 
vailing modern and Mercersburg theology. 55 " 
We shall have occasion to speak more particu- 
larly of the nature of evidence in its proper 
connection. 



§ 2. — THE CENTRAL IDEA. 

Another difference is in their central idea. 
Modern theology makes the atonement or death 
of Christ, Mercersburg the person of Christ or 
the incarnation, its central idea. The impor- 
tance of this difference can be seen in the fact, 
for instance, that the atonement itself, or justi- 
fication by faith, cannot be maintained success- 
fully by adopting the former. According to it, 
the atonement is made to rest primarily on what 
Christ has done, not on what he is. It appre- 
hends Christ as a mere individual, God and man 



* See note 1, at the end of the volume, on Dr. B.'s criti- 
cism. 



20 



MERCERSBURG AND 



in one person, it is true, but yet as a mere indi- 
vidual. Mercersburg theology apprehends Christ 
as the embodiment of the universal life of hu- 
manity, the second Adam or federal head of the 
race;* and his obedience and death receive their 
atoning merits from this fact. When he was 
nailed to the cross, more than a mere indivi- 
dual — humanity itself — was nailed to the cross ; 
consequently whatever merits attach to his suf- 
fering and death belong to the race as a whole — 
not to one individual simply — nor to a limited 
number of individuals — nor to all individuals 
numerically considered — but to humanity as a 
whole (which is something more, and deeper, 
and broader and more universal, than any num- 
ber of mere individuals), — subject to appropria- 
tion by all who claim them for their individual 
wants. If Christ had been but a mere indivi- 
dual, one among many, no such universal atone- 
ment, nor even a limited atonement, could have 
been possible. The merits of his death could 
apply no farther than to himself, and the idea of 



* See note 2. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



21 



the atonement, as available for others, falls to 
the ground. The idea of one individual dying 
for the crimes of another individual, does not 
satisfy the demands of justice. The doctrine of 
the atonement must be apprehended in. a pro- 
founder sense than this comes to, and this de- 
pends on a proper conception of the person of 
Christ. 



§ 3. — THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

The person of Christ, from which the atone- 
ment receives ail its significance, is thus proper- 
ly made the central idea in Theology ; for not 
only the atonement, but all other doctrines be- 
sides, must be apprehended from this central 
point of view. As such the doctrine of the per- 
son of Christ itself, as already intimated, has 
received special attention, and is apprehended 
more profoundly than heretofore. The points 
of difference between modern and Mercersburg 
theology, in their Christological conceptions, are 



22 



MERCERSBURG AND 



numerous and of the utmost importance to the 
whole system of Christian doctrine. 



§ 4. — THE INCARNATION. 

The incarnation of the Son of God, according 
to modern theology, implies no more than that 
he assumed human nature and became an In- 
dividual Man. According to Mercersburg the- 
ology, he assumed humanity and became the 
Universal Man, standing related to the race as 
redeemed in him, as the first Adam stood re- 
lated to the race as fallen in him. The human- 
ity of the one is as broad, as universal and com- 
prehensive as the humanity of the other. It is 
in this sense in which the Son of God, when he 
assumed human nature, became Man, by virtue 
of its sinless perfection in him, and thereby as- 
sumed the whole of its responsibilities to divine 
justice. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



23 



§ 5. — REDEMPTION. 

According to modern theology, the Son of 
God assumed our nature in order that through 
it, as a means to an end beyond himself, he 
might procure redemption for humanity as fallen 
in Adam. According to Mercersburg, the very 
assumption of that nature, in its sinless perfec- 
tion, was itself the redemption of humanity. 
In him humanity stands redeemed already, as 
the source and fountain of the new race which 
proceeds from him. In him is our redemption, 
and by becoming one with him, it is all our own. 



§ 6. — HYPOSTATICAL UNION. 

The hypostatical union, or the union of the 
divine and human nature in the person of Christ, 
is real, not only in one person, but in one life, 
the divine-human life of the Grod-man. The 
terms here used and italicised, and the ideas 
they convey, are nowhere embodied in modern 
theology. It has no definite idea what life it is 



24 



MERCERSBURG AND 



that is in Christ Jesus, and which is communi- 
cated to believers. 



§ 7. — THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

The life of Christ, communicated to believers, 
carries with it, accordingly, his human as well 
as his divine nature. Modern theology repu- 
diates as obsolete the whole idea, that believers 
partake of Christ's humanity.* But" in doing so, 
it must utterly and hopelessly fail to show, not 
only how we can become real partakers of his 
divine nature, but how we can become real par- 
takers in the merits of his suffering and death, 
which he endured in his human nature. . If it 
be true, as it tells us, that we have no part in 
his human nature, it is bound to show how it 
happens that we have part in its merits, or deny 
this as well. 

* See note 3. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



25 



§ 8. — IMPUTATION. 

Modern theology tries to help itself at this 
point by means of the doctrine of imputation. 
The merits of Christ are imputed to believers. 
But on this same doctrine of imputation, the 
same wide difference holds between the two sys- 
tems. According to the modern conception, 
which views Christ simply as an individual, the 
imputation of Christ's merits to believers is a 
mere abstraction, without a correspdhding par- 
ticipation of them in fact. According to Mer- 
cersburg, the sin of our first parents is imputed 
to their posterity, because they are involved in 
it ; — and the righteousness of Christ is imputed 
to believers for the same reason, i. e., because 
they have part in it by virtue of their union 
with him. 



20 



MERCERSBURG AND 



CHAPTER IL 



§ 9. — THE ATONEMENT. 



^mm^O a sound Christology, there are no diffi- 
jOyv culiies to the Scriptural idea of the 
atonement, or vicarious sacrifice. The 




difficulties that present themselves hold 
only against the abstract modern concep- 
tion of this doctrine. For instance, when 
the apostle says, (2 Cor. v. 21,) " Christ was 
made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we 
might be made the righteousness of God in 
him," the question arises, in the first place, how 
it is reconcilable with divine justice, that Christ, 
who was without sin, should be accounted and 
treated as a sinner? and in the second place, 
how the reverse of this, in our case, is recon- 
cilable with the same divine justice, namely, that 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



27 



we, who are sinners, should be accounted and 
treated as though we had no sin ? Both ques- 
tions demand a solution, in order to vindicate the 
doctrine of the atonement. Let us look at the 
first, and then at the second of these questions. 

It is correct, in a general way, to say, that 
both take place by imputation ; provided, we do 
not apprehend imputation as a mere abstraction, 
as is done by modern theology. It is true, the 
guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ, as though 
he, who knew no sin, were indeed a sinner. But 
God ever judges according to truth and justice. 
How, then, could the truth and justice of God 
hold Christ, who was sinlessly holy, responsible 
for the sins of the human race ? Not by setting 
them simply over to his account, in the abstract 
sense in which imputation is generally under- 
stood. Here, as elsewhere, imputation must be 
apprehended as something more than an abstrac- 
tion. The imputation of our guilt to Christ, as 
in the case of Adam's guilt to his posterity, and 
the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be- 
lievers, is not without a participation of what is 



28 



MERCERSBURG AND 



thus imputed. There must be, and there is, a 
perfect justice in accounting Christ responsible 
for our sin, though he himself was without sin. 
But the truth and justice in the case rest upon 
the fact, that he assumed our guilt by assuming 
our nature. The assumption of the same human 
nature that had sinned, on the part of a sinless 
Christ, did not absolve that nature from the 
guilt and responsibility of sin. His assumption 
of that nature gave justice the right to hold 
him answerable for the guilt of that nature; for 
in assuming it, he necessarily assumed all its 
debts and liabilities, and, therefore, placed him- 
self under the necessity of rendering satisfaction 
for sin. A man, as far as he himself is con- 
cerned, may be free of debts ; but by becoming 
the proprietor of an estate that is covered with 
judgments, for the liabilities of its former owner, 
he becomes responsible for these debts the same as 
if he had incurred them himself. By assuming 
the proprietorship of the estate, he assumes its 
indebtedness, and thereby, and not necessarily 
by any debts contracted by himself, he becomes 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



29 



a debtor to the law, and is justly and legally 
bound to render satisfaction to its claims. Thus, 
by assuming our nature that had sinned and is 
under sentence of condemnation, Christ becomes 
a debtor to the law, and is, therefore, bound to 
satisfy the demands of the law, the same as if 
he himself had incurred the debt. The justice 
that accounts him responsible does not rest on 
any sin committed by him, or an abstract as- 
sumption of our sins, but on the assumption of 
our nature that had sinned. Imputation is, 
therefore, not an abstraction, without reason, 
truth and justice, but in full accordance with 
either and all of them. The mere fact that the 
human nature in the person of Christ is without 
sin, and perfectly holy, does not exempt it from 
the guilt and responsibility of sin, as little as 
our sanctification could justify us before God. 
As Protestants, we all know that our justifica- 
tion is not effected by our sanctification. As 
there can be no justification or pardon for the 
sinner, simply by changing or sanctifying him 
by the power and operation of the Holy Spirit, 



30 



MERCERSBUE.Gr AND 



so neither could the human nature, that had 
sinned, be reconciled with God, simply by the fact 
of Christ's assuming it by the operation of the 
Holy Ghost, in a state of sinless perfection, 
without atoning for its guilt. On the contrary, 
by the very assumption of that nature, he be- 
came bound to render satisfaction for its guilt, 
and on the rendering of that satisfaction rests 
its reconciliation with God. God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself, not simply 
by assuming human nature, but by suffering the 
penalty of the law in his own person. The as- 
sumption of our nature was a free and voluntary 
act on the part of the Son of God, proceeding 
from infinite love for a fallen race. The law 
neither forbade nor demanded his humiliation. 
But when once freely and voluntarily assumed, 
then the law demanded, and had a right to demand, 
full satisfaction for sin. This he rendered by 
his active and passive obedience, and forms the 
ground of the sinner's justification before God. 

But we now come to the next question, which 
is precisely the reverse of the one just con- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 31 

sidered. The first is, how a perfectly righteous 
man can be justly and truthfully accounted and 
treated as a sinner ; and the next is, how guilty sin- 
ners can justly and truthfully be accounted and 
treated as if they were perfectly righteous ? A 
successful vindication of the doctrine of the atone- 
ment requires also a solution of this question, 
bound up and involved as it is in the former ; for 
" Christ was made sin for us, that we might be 
made the righteousness of Grod in him." The 
mere fact that Christ was made sin, who knew 
no sin ; or, that he assumed the same human na- 
ture that had sinned, and thus placed himself un- 
der obligation to render satisfaction for sin, does 
not yet explain how this is done "for us;" how 
ii we" thereby, become the righteousness of Grod." 
We can understand well enough, from what has 
been said, that the satisfaction which he rendered 
to the law holds good in reference to human 
nature as comprehended in his own person, 
whether as individual, or the new federal head 
of the race. But this does not, in itself, en- 
lighten us on the question, how we, individually, 



82 



MERCERSBURG AND 



are affected by it. The atonement, to be of any 
benefit to us, must be vicarious, rendered for us, 
and in our stead. The doctrine is, that Christ 
died for us, the just for the unjust. How, then, 
does it happen that we have part in this objec- 
tive atonement? How can the truth and justice 
of God look upon us sinners as being righteous, 
on account of the satisfaction which Christ has 
rendered to divine justice? 

The learned Bishop Hall replies very perti- 
nently to this question by saying: "He is made 
our righteousness, as he was made our sin — im- 
putation do etfi both. 1 ' Very good; but imputa- 
tion here, as in the former case, is clearly not 
to be apprehended as a mere abstraction, but 
must be in accordance with truth and justice. 
Imputation, as a mere abstraction, would fail to 
meet the case here as much as it failed in the 
other. Christ, who had no sin of his own, was 
nevertheless accounted and condemned as though 
he were a sinner, and that in full accordance with 
truth and justice, because he partook of the 

SAME HUMAN NATURE THAT HAD SINNED. On 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



33 



this the imputation rested. It was this that gave 
it truth and justice. So in the reverse case, 
we, who have no righteousness of our own, are 
"made the righteousness of God in him, ,, be- 
cause we partake, by virtue of our union with 

him, OF THE SAME HUMAN NATURE THAT KNEW 
NO SIN, AND RENDERED SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 

On this the imputation in the case rests, and it 
is this, and this only, that gives it truth and 
justice. "He was made sin for us, who knew 
no sin, that we might be made the righteousness 
of God in him/'* 



§ 10. — JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification by faith in the merits of Christ, 
is, according to modern theology, simply an 

* This article was penned and inserted here, as its most 
appropriate place, after the rest of the series had already- 
been written and published. It was occasioned by the 
reading of a notice of a recent work on the same subject. 
It is intended, in its present connection, to show more 
fully how utterly powerless modern theology is to vindicate 
this vital doctrine, with its abstract notion of imputation, 
and bold rejection of our partaking of the humanity of 
Christ. 

3 



34 



ME-RCERSBUBG AND 



outward imputation of Christ's righteousness to 
believers. According to Catholic theology, it is 
the making us righteous by the regenerating 
and sanctifying influence of the Spirit, which 
Protestant theology has justly rejected. Ac- 
cording to Oxford theology, or Puseyism (which 
seeks to mediate between the Catholic and Pro- 
testant idea), justification is the making us 
righteous by the communication of the divine 
life of Christ, which, being divine and holy, 
makes us righteous. According to Mercersburg 
theology, the Protestant doctrine of imputation 
is substantially correct, that we are accounted 
righteous for the sake of the merits and right- 
eousness of Christ (his active and passive obedi- 
ence whilst on earth) ; but apprehends the doc- 
trine more profoundly, by adding, that the 
divine act of imputation in the case is condi- 
tioned by our actual participation in these 
merits, by virtue of our union with Christ. It 
is not simply a declaratory, but a creative act 
at the same time, which brings us into possession 
of Christ's merits, which are imputed to us for 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



35 



righteousness. The merits of Christ are there- 
fore not, as modern theology would have it, 
simply set over to our account, but are made 
over to us in fact, in the mystical union of 
Christ and the believer. The merits of Christ 
are inseparable from his divine-human person or 
life, and go together in the simultaneous act of 
justification and regeneration, which do not fol- 
low each other in the order of time.* 



§ 11.— REGENERATION. 

Regeneration, according to modern theology, 
is, to use the most plausible form of expression, 
a change of heart, wrought by the operation of 
the Holy Spirit. To deny this is enough to 
cause men and women to raise up their hands in 
holy horror. According to Mercersburg theology, 
neither an outward reformation, nor an inward 
change of heart and mind, constitutes regenera- 
tion. These are but the results of regeneration; 



* See notes 4 and 5. 



36 



MEBCERSBUKG AND 



not regeneration itself; the product simply of 
something that lies back of it, and deeper and 
profounder than all this. Regeneration, accord- 
ing to Mercersburg theology, is truly and really 
what the Saviour* calls it, the new birth! This 
is a different idea altogether. It is not like 
changing a filthy garment into a clean one, 
which is the type of regeneration according to 
modern theology. There is, according to this 
view, much taken away from our old nature ; 
but nothing new is added that was not at hand 
before the washing began. It is still our old 
nature — the old Adam — washed, and cleansed, 
and dressed up like a veritable-looking Christian, 
it is true; but he is, for all that, not a new 
creature. How different from all this is the 
prominent idea in the conception of a New 
Birth, or that of being made a new creature in 
Christ Jesus! What is implied in a natural 
birth? A life-communication; and the new 
birth is nothing short of this. It is, according 
to Mercersburg theology, the communication of 
Christ's life to believers, by the operation of 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



37 



the Holy Spirit. Christ is to be formed within 
us, the hope of glory, and this life-communica- 
tion is the beginning of the process ; the end, 
our entire sanctification by the assimilating and 
transforming power of the life of Christ, which, 
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, becomes 
the life of our life, and more and more the life 
of our whole being, until our remaining corrup- 
tion is finally and forever surmounted. The 
deepest ground of Christ's life, in the act of 
regeneration, enters into the deepest ground of 
our life, where they become one, the latter being 
raised up into the order and quality of the 
former; a parallel of which, to some extent, 
may be found in the grafted vine, which unites 
in one the life of the old vine and that of the 
new, whilst the life of the old vine is raised up 
into the nature and quality of the new. 



§ 12. — THE NEW CREATION. 

Regeneration is nothing more nor less than 
the new birth, and not itself, strictly speaking, 



38 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



the new creation; but it has its ground in the 
new creation. Man, at the head of the first 
creation, with all its different orders of life, with 
which he stood intimately and harmoniously 
connected, stood in the same intimate and har- 
monious relation with God, his creator, and the 
paradise on earth with the paradise above. God 
and man were united, heaven and earth were in 
harmony. When man fell from this high estate, 
he involved all nature in the ruin of his fall. 
God and man were separated. Paradise was 
lost, heaven and earth were parted. How can 
this lost unity between God and man, between 
the human and divine, the natural and the su- 
pernatural be again restored? Can what is 
thus unhappily broken and separated be again 
joined together, so as fully to answer its original 
idea of unity? Modern theology says, yes, cer- 
tainly. Mercersburg theology says, no, never. 
Old things must pass away, and all things must 
become new. A new creation is here wanted to 
restore the unbroken unity which was lost. Any 
thing short of this would be but the old crea- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



39 



tion patched up, a thing mended, but not made 
new, whether its joining together could be 
effected by screwing up and elevating the one 
part, or depressing the other, or by both. A 
thing once broken, however it may be joined to- 
gether, can never be any thing more than an 
old mended thing. The divine nature lost in 
the fall of the race, cannot be restored, except 
by a new creation. It is only thus that God 
and man, heaven and earth, can again become 
united, and paradise restored on earth. The 
necessity of this, and the nature of this new 
creation, and its relation to the new birth, will 
become clearer to the mind by entering a little 
more into detail. Man, and with him all the 
lower kingdoms and orders of life in the first 
creation, fell from the life of God. The lowest 
order of life (if life it can be called*), is present 
in the mineral kingdom, which approximates to 



* Dr. Hahneman's system of medicine rests on the theory, 
that there is in every particle of matter, a latent principle 
analogous to life, the manifestations of which are the effects 
it produces when brought into contact with organic life. 



40 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



the vegetable kingdom, in which a higher order 
of life is manifestly present. This again ap- 
proximates the animal kingdom, in which life 
and its manifestations are of a higher order still. 
This looks up and approximates a still higher 
order of life than itself, which is human life. 
All these different kingdoms and orders of life, 
stand intimately related to each other, and 
even flow into each other, so that it is difficult 
sometimes to draw the line of distinction; and 
yet each one, by the law of its nature, is limited 
to its own order of existence, and is not able to 
overleap its own boundary, and become some- 
thing higher than itself. Here then we have 
these various kingdoms and orders of life : first 
the mineral, secondly the vegetable, then the 
animal, then the human. Beyond this, there is 
still a higher order of life, the divine life — but 
at what a distance beyond the human ! Here is 
the open gap, caused by the fall. Originally 
this gap did not exist. Before the fall, man 
stood in as intimate relation to the divine life, 
as he stands to the orders of life beneath him. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



41 



But sin caused the separation. There is the 
breach. Man and this present world stand on 
one side, God and paradise on the other. 
Heaven and earth cannot be so moved as to 
bring them together. The case requires the ac- 
tual creation of a new kingdom, and a new or- 
der of life to mediate between them. And what 
order of life is here wanted to fill up the chasm 
and re-unite them ? Not a purely human, nor 
a purely divine order of life; for these are 
already at hand. The case requires a divine- 
human order of life, that will fit in, and fill up 
the gap. Such a divine-human life is presided 
for in the person and kingdom of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the new creation, in which God and man, 
heaven and earth are again united. By the 
new birth we are born into this new kingdom, 
and become new creatures in Christ Jesus. By 
our natural birth we are born fallen and sinful 
beings, destitute of the life of God. The law of 
sin, which is the controlling law of this life, will 
never allow it to rise above itself. A mineral 
can never be cultivated into a vegetable, nor a 



42 



MERCERSBURG AND " 



vegetable into an animal, nor an animal trained 
into a human being, nor a sinner into a Chris- 
tian. An ape may look very much like a hu- 
man being, and be taught to play many human 
tricks, but he remains an ape for all that. And 
unless the sinner be born again, and become a 
new creature in Christ Jesus, he can never sur- 
mount the law of sin, which binds him to his 
fallen condition, the life and order of mere 
nature* 



§ 13. — THE BODY OF CHRIST. 

But the real difficulty in the way of modern 
theology is, after all, an old anthropological 
one, raised by ancient and revived by modern 
critics, which has brought into almost universal 
discredit the doctrine of our partaking of the 
humanity of Christ. These critics, both ancient 
and modern, have failed, however, to show, on 
truly scientific principles, that the doctrine of 
the Church, that believers partake of the body 
of Christ, is untenable; and it was entirely pre- 
mature and fatal to all sound theological views, 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



43 



to drop this doctrine in our modern systems of 
theology. The objections of these false critics 
rest on the exploded assumption, that the human 
body is essentially and entirely material, and 
consequently governed by the laws of matter ex- 
clusively. We admit that the science of an- 
thropology was not so far advanced at the time, 
that the ancient Church, or the Reformers in 
their day, were able to reply successfully to 
this objection; and yet they held firmly to the 
doctrine thus assailed, because they found it 
contained in God's word and essential to the 
whole system of Christian doctrine. Luther 
endeavored to meet this objection, by taking the 
position, that, by virtue of the union of both na- 
tures in the person of Christ, his body, in a 
glorified state, could be present wherever his 
divinity was. However true this may be, when 
properly apprehended, it is neither correct nor 
satisfactory when predicated of the body of 
Christ as something in itself corporeal and ex- 
clusively material. Calvin felt this, and en- 
deavored to solve the difficulty in another way. 



44 



MERCEKSBURG AND 



According to his view, our faith elevates us 
above the limits and laws of space, and brings 
us thus into living union with his body, though 
he be in heaven and we on earth. However 
true this also is, when properly apprehended, it 
t was equally unsatisfactory when predicated of 
things corporeal. It is true of things spiritual, 
but not of things material. But whether these 
different and well-meant attempts succeeded in 
satisfying the demands of reason or not, both 
Luther and Calvin and their respective follow- 
ers, held firmly to the doctrine, that we partake 
of the body of Christ truly and really. Melanc- 
thon and the Heidelberg Catechism perhaps took 
the wisest course. They, too, taught the posi- 
tive doctrine that we partake truly and really of 
the body of Christ as the teachings of God's 
word, which is higher than our poor, limited, 
and erring human reason; and left reason to 
get rid of the difficulty the best way it could, or 
to submit itself, as it is in duty bound, to the 
word of God. While thus both the Reformed 
and Lutheran Churches were united in holding to 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



45 



the doctrine in question, whilst they differed 
merely in their respective modes of explaining 
it, modern theology succumbed and gave up the 
contest, by giving up the doctrine itself. In- 
stead of progressing and apprehending the doc- 
trine more profoundly, theology retrograded and 
became itself rationalistic in order to square it- 
self with such hyper-criticism. Mercersburg 
theology holds firmly to the doctrine of the 
Church, not only as sound and safe, but as es- 
sential to the maintenance of the whole system 
of Christian doctrine. It does so, not by igno- 
ring the objections referred to, but by pro- 
ving and exposing their fallacy. According to 
the anthropological conception, which underlies 
Mercersburg theology, the accidental parts of 
the human body, it is true, are material and 
subject to the laws of matter; but the essential 
part is spiritual, and not subject to these laws. 
We do not partake, for example, of the material 
substance of Adam's body, which has been moul- 
dering in the grave for six thousand years ; — 
and yet, notwithstanding this freely admitted 



46 



MERCERSBURG AND 



fact, all his children, red, white and black, are 
bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. More 
than this, we derive from him our whole nature, 
body, soul and spirit — but not, if you please, the 
bread and butter, the Indian corn and Irish po- 
tatoes, that enter at any time into the outward 
and material structure of the body. The iden- 
tity of the body, its true, essential and imperisha- 
ble substance, does not consist in any of these 
material accidents. The parallel being thus 
fully established, to which others could be 
added, there can be no really scientific objection 
raised against the doctrine, that believers par- 
take of the body of Christ, the second Adam, 
who are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, 
by virtue of their new birth, as truly and really 
as they are of the first Adam, by their natural 
birth. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



47 



CHAPTER III. 




§ 14. — THE SACRAMENTS. 

)UEFICIENT has already been said, bear- 
ing on the sacramental question, and but 
little is required to be repeated here un- 
der its specific head. It is enough here to 
say, that according to Mercersburg theo- 
logy, the Sacrament of Baptism is the divine- 
ly instituted means by which, ordinarily, the life- 
communication takes place, which, as already 
stated, is the beginning of that process, by which 
Christ is formed within us, the hope of glory ; 
and that that life is especially fed and nourished 
by the Bread of life, communicated to us in the 
Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. As 
modern theology has no conception of any such 
a life-communication at any time, and has given 
up the whole idea of our partaking of the body 



48 



MERCERSBURG AND 



of Christ, under any form, it cannot admit that 
any thing of the kind takes place in the use of 
the sacraments. In being thus unsacramental, 
it is but consistent with its whole theory of 
Christianity and the Church. 



§ 15. — THE ORGANIC LAW OF CHRISTIANITY. 

The organic law of Christianity, as a higher 
order of life than any which is found in the 
sphere of mere nature, holds in its body, the 
Church, as primarily present, and proceeding 
from, the person of Christ. The Individualism 
of modern theology admits no such organic law 
in the case. The Church is, accordingly, in no 
real sense, an organic body; but a mere collec- 
tion and organization of individual Christians, 
who adopt such Church polity as to them may 
seem to promote the general interests of Christi- 
anity under such form. But there is no binding 
force on the conscience of any one, to abide by 
the confederation thus formed. Each one is at 
liberty to break loose from it and join another, 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



49 



or start a new one, better suited to his fancy, 
without violating any principle except that, per- 
haps, of propriety and expediency. It is lawful, 
but may not be proper or expedient, is the ex- 
tent of the restriction under which the radi- 
calism, thus recognized as legitimate, is held; 
but as each individual is to be the judge of the 
expediency and propriety in his own case, the 
restriction amounts to nothing. Full license is 
thus given to the sect spirit, and is justified in 
the premises in breaking up the Church into as 
many fragments as it pleases. Hence, there is 
no Church authority that has a right to inter- 
fere in maintaining her integrity by restraining 
the conscience of men. No Church authority is 
recognized and respected except such as each 
individual chooses to invest the Church with; 
and when he takes that back, the Church has no 
longer jurisdiction over him. The idea of the 
Church is thus reduced to a perfect level with 
any other voluntary human organization. There 
is nothing in it that binds Christians together 
organically. The Christian life which each one 

4 



50 



MERCERSBURCt and 



may be supposed to possess, he holds only in 
himself, and does not extend and reach over, 
organically, to the rest of the members of the 
same body. 

According to Mercersburg theology, how- 
ever, the very fact, that Christianity is a life, 
and not a mere idea or doctrine, contradicts the 
whole theory of the Church, as here presented. 
The philosophy which underlies the proper idea 
of the Church, lays down as a universal propo- 
sition, that all life is organic, to which the 
Christian life can form no exception. This be- 
ing true in the premises, it follows as equally 
true, that the Christian life is attained only by 
an organic process; and we have the idea of the 
Church as an Organism, starting in the person 
of Christ as its fountain, and developing itself 
as His mystical body, of which we are the mem- 
bers. 

Of the correctness of the universal proposi- 
tion referred to, any one can convince himself 
by a little reflection. Wherever there is life 
and its manifestation, there is an organism, in 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



51 



which it holds and is actually present in the 
world. This is true of every order of life, and 
in all the manifold forms in which its presence 
is known to exist. The life of the animalcule, 
though invisible to the naked eye, has its orga- 
nism, as well as that of the monster beast of the 
field. The life of the most minutely small 
plants up to the giant oaks of the forest, have 
all their peculiar organisms. 

Human life is organic, and the body is its 
organism. Destroy this body and its life must 
perish. Outside of its organism life can have 
no existence for the actual world around us. 

Nor can life reproduce and multiply itself, 
except by an organic process. The farmer, in 
order to multiply his grain, must allow it to un- 
dergo an organic process of germination, of 
growth and development, until it has repro- 
duced itself a hundred fold in the ripened corn 
in the ear. 

All legitimate fruit is the result of an organic 
process. Apples and peaches are not made, 
but grow ; not in the air, but on trees. Yan- 



52 



MERCERSBURG AND 



kees know how to make wooden nutmegs, and 
the French understand how to make all sorts of 
artificial flowers and fruit, that look very pretty ; 
but no one thinks of accepting them as genuine. 
The difference between the true and false is ap- 
parent — the one grows, the other is made. We 
have any number of such ready-made Christians 
in the world, whose Christianity is professedly 
not the result of any organic process. 

The family is an organism, of which parents 
are the head and children the members. Chil- 
dren are not born outside and brought together 
into the family, but are born into this relation. 
All else are illegitimate and forfeit all claim to 
heirship. Bastard Christians are equally ex- 
cluded from being heirs with the children of 
God. 

The State is an organism, in which the life of 
the nation is embodied; and its laws, its insti- 
tutions and citizenship, are the product of its 
organic life. Outside of this organic relation 
to the State, there can be no such thing as a 
citizen of the State. All others are aliens, 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



53 



whether in or outside of the State ; and all who 
are not organically related to the Church are 
aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, the king- 
dom of Christ. 

The Church is an organism, and embodies the 
highest and freest order of life. It is the body 
of Christ, and we are its members. By the pro- 
cess of organic development, the life of Christ 
has become the life of the Church, which is the 
bearer of His life, and the home of his presence 
in the world, to dispense life, and grace, and 
truth, to all who come unto Him. Outside of 
this organism there can be no Christians, no 
Christianity, because outside of it there is no 
Saviour, no life, no salvation for a lost and 
ruined world. All this is implied in the simple 
and undeniable fact, that Christianity is a life; 
for if it be a life at all, it is organic. The only 
escape from this is to deny that it is a life, and 
resolve it into mere idea or doctrine or precept, 
or any thing else ; but this is falling helplessly 
into the arms of Rationalism and Infidelity. 



54 



MERCERSBURG- AND 



§ 16. — THE CHURCH AS AN OBJECT OF FAITH. 

The Church becomes accordingly an object of 
faith, inasmuch as it is a continuation of the 
mystery of the Incarnation, with which it stands 
connected as an article of faith in the Apostles' 
Creed. This continuation of the life of Christ 
in the Church, is as real as the life of the race 
is a continuation of the life of the first Adam ; 
but like the mystery of the incarnation itself, it 
transcends all the laws of mere nature, and be- 
comes an object of faith. According to modern 
theology, the Church is not an object of faith, 
and no mystery is connected with it. It has, 
accordingly, no sympathy with the Creed. The 
Church being but a voluntary association of 
Christians, outwardly brought together, without 
the binding tie of a common organic life, it be- 
comes an object, not to be apprehended by faith, 
but by the baldest common sense. 

§ 17. — THE CHURCH AND THE REFORMATION. 

Mercersburg theology makes accordingly pro- 
per account of the ancient faith of the Church, 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



55 



as embodied in the Creed; as well as of the 
Church itself in all ages. Hence its invaluable 
productions in the department of Church history 
(vide Dr. Schaff's Church History). While it 
takes the position that Protestant theology is an 
advance over Catholic theology, it yet maintains 
that it is the reproduction of the latter under a 
deeper and profounder apprehension of its truths, 
and not the production of a new theology. So 
with the faith of the Church, and the Church 
itself. The Church of the Reformation, with its 
faith and doctrines, was not the product of any 
individual or number of individuals, who started 
fresh from the Bible in reconstructing the Church 
and its faith and doctrines. It was the result 
of the best life of the Catholic Church itself, 
which was tending and struggling toward this 
end for centuries, until it reached its culmina- 
tion in the great Reformation. 

Modern theology has no sense and apprecia- 
tion for any such organic connection with the 
past history and life of the Church. Its study 
and labor in Church history is rather to find 



56 



MERCERSBURG AND 



cause to be confirmed in its theory, the very op- 
posite to this. The Reformation was, accord- 
ingly, not the result of a life-process, or histori- 
cal development; but merely the work of indi- 
vidual men, who, finding the Church not to their 
idea, left it as the synagogue of Satan, and re- 
constructed a new one on what they considered 
to be the plain sense of the Bible, much in the 
same style in which this is attempted by modern 
sects. But this theory wrongs the Reformation 
in its most vital parts. It is virtually giving up 
the Reformation as a falling away; as the anti- 
Christian power that arrays itself against the 
mystery of the incarnation, of which the Church 
in all ages is its continuation in the world. 

§ 18. — ROMANIZING TENDENCY. 

According to modern theology, these teach- 
ings of Mercersburg would lead the Church back 
to Rome. But how, it has never been made to 
appear. Certainly not by the process of organic 
development, which never goes backward. * Only 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



57 



individuals who are not comprehended in this 
organic process, go backward. The Church as 
an organism can never retrograde. All organic 
life is bound to go forward; and if Protestant 
Christianity is what Mercersburg theology con- 
tends for, it can never lead us back to Rome. 
The great danger lies precisely in the modern 
theory here brought to view. Earnest minds, 
who accept it as the true exposition of Protest- 
antism, are inevitably carried over to Rome, to 
escape its logical consequences, that would in- 
gulf them in the abyss of infidelity. The suc- 
cessful vindication of Protestantism depends, 
therefore, upon the successful refutation of this 
modern theory of the Church. 



58 



MERCER9BURG AND 



CHAPTER IV. 



§ 19. — THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY. 

^tibb^ HE office of the ministry, according to 
^jjp modern theology, is not invested with 
functions commensurate with the divine 
and supernatural facts and realities with 
which it has to deal, and in whose ser- 
vice it has been instituted. It has no power 
to bind the conscience of men in matters of 
faith and practice, being clothed with no bind- 
ing power of any kind. However well a man 
may be accredited as a minister of Jesus Christ, 
he is, in no real sense, the organ through 
which Christ speaks, whose words and official 
acts are to be accepted in good faith, as being 
in accordance with his instructions. Instead of 
such faith in his favor, or rather in favor of the 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



59 



truth he represents, in the premises, he must al- 
low those to whom he is accredited, the advan- 
tage of entertaining a doubt in what he says, 
until he convinces them by documentary or other 
evidences, that he is not misrepresenting the 
truth, of which they themselves are to be the 
judges. He has, accordingly, no right to ex- 
pect, for instance, that even the children of the 
Church should believe the Creed, until he has 
convinced their understanding, that its contents 
agree with the teaching of the Bible; and not 
even to believe in the Bible itself, until he has 
proved to them that it is the word of God ; and 
that God's Word is something which they must 
accept by faith unconditionally, without asking 
any farther troublesome questions. But as he 
is not allowed to make any such demand in the 
premises, he will have some considerable diffi- 
culty to find the point where the unconditional 
faith comes in spontaneously, from which he can 
proceed to build them up in the faith and know- 
ledge of the truth. 

This whole view of the office of the ministry 



60 



MERCERSBUKG AND 



is humiliating and degrading, both to Christ and 
his ministers. The common courtesies of life 
are denied to a minister the moment he speaks 
and acts in his official capacity. Nothing that 
he says or does as an accredited minister of 
Christ, is to be received in good faith. There 
is nothing in the dignity and character of his 
office, or in his relation to the Church and to 
Christ, or in the nature and substance of the 
message he is commissioned to deliver, that 
should demand such faith in the premises. He 
has literally nothing to fall back upon, to in- 
spire faith in them that hear him. He must be 
ready to prove every word and act of his, before 
it is accepted as being true. No premises are 
admitted, from which he may choose to start, 
and he is brought to a dead lock at once. He 
must cease proclaiming the gospel, and enter the 
domain of philosophical speculation as a last re- 
sort, to find, if possible, an admitted premise, 
which involves the whole system of truth which 
he is commissioned to preach. Christ is not 
himself the truth, and the truth is not to be found 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



61 



in Him, nor in His W ord, nor in His Church ; 
but somewhere in the interminable depth of phi- 
losophical speculations, where it has been sought 
in vain for four thousand years, until it appeared 
in the flesh in the person of Christ, who com- 
missioned His ministers to preach it — not to 
prove it ; to proclaim it — not to demonstrate it. 

According to Mercersburg theology, the Church 
embodies a continuation of the life of Christ on 
earth, and the office of the ministry is a continua- 
tion of His prophetic, His priestly and kingly 
office. If Christ be present in the Church, as 
His mystical body, He is not only present in 
His divine and human nature, but also in His 
threefold office, with their divine and superna- 
tural functions. That office, with its functions, 
is reproduced in the office of the ministry, which 
He Himself instituted and solemnly invested, 
with the promise to be identified with it to the 
end of time. The office of the ministry thus 
stands in living, organic, and immediate relation 
to Christ, as prophet, priest, and king. The 
prophetic, priestly, and kingly office, as fore- 



62 



MERCERSBURG AND 



shadowed in the old dispensation, and fully- 
realized in the person of Christ, is thus carried 
forward and perpetuated in the Christian Church. 
The Church, thus invested with the prophetic 
office, becomes, through her ministry, the teacher 
of mankind, and all men are bound to accept by 
faith, the words of eternal life, which it is com- 
missioned to proclaim. 

When the apostles preached the gospel, men 
were expected to receive it by faith, not blindly, 
by any means, but just as little on the ground 
of any extrinsic evidence lying beyond itself, but 
was backed by the demonstration of the divine 
and supernatural presence, by which their teach- 
ings were inspired. The divine and supernatu- 
ral, which thus formed the basis on which their 
teachings were accepted by faith, continues pre- 
sent in the Church for all time to come, as the 
ever-abiding and immovable basis on which men 
now, and in all past and future ages, accept, by 
faith, the teachings of the gospel — the Bible, as 
being the word of God, included. The Church 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



63 



is thus, what the Bible affirms it to be, the pillar 
and ground of the truth. 



§ 20. — OBJECTIVE FAITH. — THE CREED. 

With these premises in her favor, the Church 
has a right to give formal expression to her faith, 
and to challenge its acceptance unconditionally. 
The Bible itself is an object of faith, and its con- 
tents can only be properly understood in the 
light of that faith which we receive from the 
Church. In the light of that faith, which we 
bring to it, do the internal evidences of the sa- 
cred Scriptures carry with them their full and 
legitimate force in confirming and establishing 
what has thus been apprehended by faith. With- 
out such faith in the premises, the internal evi- 
dences of the Bible would fail to establish its 
own authenticity and inspiration, and no ground 
could be gained for faith to rest upon. We re- 
ceive our faith from the Church, as expressed, 
for instance, in the Apostles' Creed, and must 



64 



MEROERSBURG AND 



bring that faith with us, and in the light of it, 
read the Bible, in order to understand its con- 
tents — the contents of our faith, as well as the 
Bible, which is, to us Protestants, the only in- 
fallible norm of that faith, as the God-given safe- 
guard against the possible aberration from the 
truth. 

Modern theology makes no account of the 
Creed. It has no power to appreciate its in- 
trinsic worth, or its catholicity and historical 
value. It is, in fact, of no manner of value in 
a system of theology, that starts without faith in 
any thing! It does not need the universal faith 
of the Church as a starting-point. Its own pri- 
vate judgment can get along well enough with- 
out it. It gets its faith fresh from the Bible, 
which is superior to any old and musty creeds 
of the Church, which only hamper the free exer- 
cise of a more enlightened judgment. But we 
have already seen the dead lock, to which even 
a little child can bring it, when forced to make 
good its flippant and silly pretensions. 

Mercersburg theology does not hesitate to ac- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



65 



knowledge that it stands in full sympathy with 
the universal faith of the Church, as expressed 
in the Creed. It is of infinite importance to 
find such universally admitted premises, from 
which we can proceed in building up the Church 
in the faith and knowledge of the truth. Here 
is something to start upon ; something that chal- 
lenges our acceptance, on the ground that it has 
been admitted bv the universal Church in all 
ages. What an advantage this in the catechisa- 
tion and instruction of children in a communion 
where proper account is made of the Creed ! It 
is, besides, a bond of union, that still binds all 
Christians together in the unity of a common 
faith, which all their dire conflicts and divisions 
could not destroy. This is itself a stupendous 
fact, challenging implicit faith, that what has 
under such circumstances been universally and 
in all ages held as true, must be true indeed. 
It is only equalled by the same unanimity with 
which the Bible has been accepted as the word 
of God, which is the normative rule of faith, as 
expressed in the Creed. And, as such, they 



66 



MERCERSBURG AND 



cannot be separated. They stand or fall to- 
gether. As long as the Creed is accepted as an 
expression of our undoubted Christian faith, the 
Bible will be accepted as the undoubted word of 
God, and as long as the Bible is revered as the 
undoubted word of God, will the Creed be re- 
vered as our undoubted Christian faith. 

There is a necessary and inseparable relation 
between Creed and Bible, without an implied co- 
ordination. The Creed is the expression of our 
undoubted Christian faith, the Bible the un- 
doubted and infallible norm of its contents. Se- 
parate them, and you destroy the unity of faith 
on the one hand, and reject the Bible as its in- 
fallible rule on the other. If we set aside the 
Creed, we give up our common faith; and if we 
go to gather our faith fresh from the Bible, we 
shall have as many different kinds of faith as 
there are different apprehensions of its contents. 
The Bible is no longer the infallible rule of an 
undoubted and universally accepted faith,- but 
is made the rule for any number of conflicting 
kinds of faith (falsely so called), which is but a 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



67 



mockery of both faith and the word of God. 
Both suffer alike, and the inevitable result of 
such a separation, would be the rejection of both. 

Modern theology is unwittingly paving the 
way for just such a sad result ; and the misera- 
ble sect-system which it encourages, is hatching 
out a brood of skeptics and infidels, who will 
learn to despise the authority of the Bible with 
as much zealas they are now taught to despise 
the authority of the Church. 

But the Creed should be cherished for still 
another reason. It is not only important as 
reaching back through all past ages of the 
Church, but is looking forward in the future- 
Being the bond that still holds Christians to. 
gether in the unity of their common faith, it 
only requires to make proper account of this 
fact, to find that the Creed is the basis and start- 
ing-point for the future unity of the Church, 
which we all so ardently desire. 



08 



MERCERSBURG AND 



CHAPTER V. 




§ 21. — RULE OF FAITH. 

^ERCERSBURG theology accepts, with- 
out reservation, the old Protestant doc- 
trine, that the Bible is the only infalli- 
ble rule of faith; but rejects the mo- 
dern perversion of this doctrine, that 
it is the only source of faith. According to mo- 
dern theology, we derive our faith directly from 
the Bible, and the rule of our faith, to be derived 
from it, is every man's private judgment. That, 
and not the Bible, is the only infallible rule of 
faith, according to modern theology. It reverses 
the order of faith and knowledge. Our faith is 
made to rest on what we know or understand to 
be the teachings of the Bible, according to which 
there are as many different kinds of faith as 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



69 



there are different apprehensions of the teach- 
ings of the Bible. 

According to Mercersburg theology, we must 
believe in order to understand. Whatever effect 
knowledge may have to confirm and strengthen 
our faith, faith embraces always, from first to 
last, something more and deeper, than our know- 
ledge of its contents. We may have faith, but 
may not have the knowledge of all it includes, 
and all that it excludes. The rule of faith de- 
termines this, as far as its contents can be known. 
We derive our faith from the Church — from the 
rule of faith our knowledge of its contents. We 
bring that faith with us, when we go to the Bible 
as the rule of faith, and in the light of both we 
learn to understand more and more their sense 
and meaning. 

But let it be remembered, that the Bible is 
given to the Church as the rule of faith, and that 
she has brought her faith to it and studied it for 
centuries. The accumulated knowledge or ap- 
prehension of its truth, thus reached, has, from 
time to time, been reduced into regular order 



70 



MERCERSBUR3 AND 



and system, which constitutes the theology of 
the Church. We thus not only receive our faith 
from the Church, but the most of what we really 
know and understand of the teachings of the 
Bible. For an individual to sit in judgment 
over the faith and doctrines of the Church, with 
nothing but an open Bible before him, with no 
previous faith in his heart, and nothing but his 
private judgment in his noddle, is simply an ar- 
rogant presumption, which exalts individual con- 
ceit above the faith, the wisdom and intelligence 
of the whole Church, past and present. 

The progressive development of theological 
science, or a clearer and profounder apprehen- 
sion of the doctrines of Christianity, is an im- 
portant part of the organic development of the 
life of the Church, and is not the product, in 
any way, of independent individualism, which 
has never contributed any thing positive in set- 
tling a single point in theological science; but 
is capable only of reproducing old errors under 
new forms, whose fallacies have been exposed 
time and again. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



71 



§ 22. — THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 

Mercersburg theology is also free to admit, 
that the Bible carries within itself the evidence 
of being the word of God. But to what does it 
authenticate itself as the word of God? Is it 
to faith, or to the understanding? We know 
by faith, that the Bible is the word and truth of 
God, and not otherwise. It is as much an ob- 
ject of faith as any thing else thaj is divine and 
supernatural. That the Bible is God's word 
and truth is self-evident to faith, and to faith 
alone. There is that in it, which fully harmo- 
nizes and meets the wants of our spiritual na- 
ture, which accepts it as truth on its bare pre- 
sentation. It does not argue and reason on the 
subject. It does not require any proof, as little 
as any other self-evident truth does. The Bible 
is to faith the word of God, independent, in fact, 
of all internal and external proof. It is accepted 
as we accept any other self-evident truth or uni- 
versal proposition. 

If the position of modern theology, however, 
be taken, that the Bible must first authenticate 



72 



MERCERSBUHG AND 



itself to the understanding, before we can accept 
it and believe in it as the word of God, then it 
is reduced to the nature of a minor proposition, 
that requires to be established by proof. Whether 
the proof may be found inside or outside of its 
pages, is all the same — it has to be produced, 
and be satisfactory to the understanding. The 
proof, of course, must be such as can be com- 
prehended by the understanding, which thus sits 
in judgment in the case. The deeper, inner, 
spiritual sense which runs through the Bible 
from beginning to end, cannot be brought in as 
evidence in the case, because it is beyond the 
grasp of the bare understanding. The very evi- 
dence on which its authentication depends, is 
thus ruled out in deciding the question for faith, 
whether the Bible be the word of God. 

Strange that any professed Christian should 
be willing to let the trial go on before such an 
incompetent tribunal, and accept the results as 
the ground of his faith in the Bible ! And yet 
this is precisely what modern theology and what 
undisguised Rationalism are doing. We will 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



73 



say nothing in regard to which is the more con- 
sistent in its conclusions. It is enough to know, 
that they arrive at very different results, which 
involves the question in sufficient doubt and un- 
certainty to justify us in rejecting their premises. 
But no such different and opposite conclusions 
are arrived at by those who apprehend the Bible 
by faith. No one who has ever apprehended the 
deeper, inner, spiritual sense of the Bible, has 
come to any other conclusion, than that it is the 
word and truth of God ; and no one has ever 
thrown a shadow of doubt on this point. They 
may differ in comprehending its contents in de- 
tail, or in all its heights and depths, according 
to the measure of faith given unto them ; but as 
to its divine origin and truth, they are a cloud 
of witnesses that proclaim it with one universal 
accord. 



74 



MERCERSBURG AND 



§ 23. — SUBJECTIVE FAITH. 

It is a comfort to know, that men's faith is 
often better than their theology; so that while 
we are bound to reject their views and theories 
on faith, we can afford to admit, that they may 
not be destitute of faith itself. It is what Mer- 
cersburg theology contends for, that our under- 
standing of spiritual things is not their measure 
and criterion. But to entertain and cherish 
views of spiritual things contrary to their nature, 
is, to say the least of it, extremely dangerous ; 
especially to those who do make their under- 
standing of spiritual things the rule and mea- 
sure of their contents. This holds true in re- 
ference to all matters of faith, but especially in 
reference to faith itself which is an object of 
sdf -apprehension ; that is, faith must apprehend 
itself, and reveal its nature to the understanding, 
in order to have any rational conception of it. 
Where there is no such self-apprehension of 
faith, the understanding can have no conception 
of its nature, and its views on the subject are 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



75 



mere conjectures and speculations, which satisfy 
neither the heart nor the understanding, because 
they are destitute of that certitude which we 
have a right to expect in a proposition on so 
important a subject. 

In reversing the order of faith and know- 
ledge, as is done by modern theology, faith itself 
is made to be something very different from what 
it is in reality. The question of order here in- 
volves two radically different views of faith 
itself, so widely different, indeed, that they are 
virtually made to exclude each other. 

According to Mercersburg theology, there is 
in the constitution of man's higher and spiritual 
nature, an innate power of apprehending spirit- 
ual and divine things, which, when excited into 
exercise by the lively preaching of the gospel, or 
by being brought into immediate and proper re- 
lation to divine and spiritual realities, constitutes 
Faith. By the exercise of this power "he en- 
ters into communion with the invisible and 
spiritual world ; into the heart and mind of God 
himself, and draws from thence new spiritual 



76 



MERCERSBURG AND 



life for his own being."* However deeply 
fallen and depraved, our higher nature is still 
conscious of its divine origin, and longs for re- 
union and re communion with God, and the 
spiritual world from which it sprung. Like the 
prodigal son, the type of the Gentile world, that 
lives without God, it cannot be totally lost to 
the consciousness that God is its father and a 
lost paradise its proper home, for which it longs 
and sighs, in the midst of the beggarly elements 
of this present world. 

Modern theology, on the contrary, proceeds 
on the assumption, that there is no such inherent 
power in man. Whether it assumes the infidel 
position, that he never had a spiritual nature, 
grounded in the constitution of his being, or the 
position, that it was entirely lost by the fall, it 
amounts to the same thing. He has not that 
nature now, and no such power is inherent in 
him by which he can apprehend spiritual things. 
He must accordingly apprehend them, if at all, 



* Dr. Nevin. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



77 



not by any spiritual, but by the intellectual 
powers of his being, and thus know, before he 
can believe. He must be taught to know that 
there is a God, on evidences that convince his 
understanding, before he can believe there is a 
God, and so on to the end of the chapter. But 
such belief in God, is something very different 
from faith in God. The truth of God is not re- 
vealed to faith, but to the understanding; and 
the intellectual assent of the mind to the truth 
thus presented and apprehended, constitutes 
faith. But, contingent on mere evidence, it 
must ever be a very uncertain and doubtful 
faith, liable to be driven about by every wind of 
doctrine, because it lacks that certitude which 
true faith implies, and which no amount of mere 
proof, nor evidence, nor logical reasoning can 
ever produce. It is not itself the evidence or 
authentication of things not seen, but rests on 
evidences lying wholly beyond itself and aside 
of the object on which it is exercised. We shall 
reserve our concluding remarks on this point, 
and embody them in a separate section on the 



78 



MERCEESBURa AND 



nature 0E EVIDENCES, in which we shall give, 
with the indulgence of the reader, a few simple 
and familiar illustrations of a subject involving 
perhaps the most important points of difference 
between the two systems under consideration ; 
and, at the same time, by implication, the radi- 
cal difference between Mercersburg and Rome. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



79 



CHAPTER VI. 




§ 24. — ON THE NATURE OF EVIDENCES. 

tCCORDING to modern theology, faith 
is the assent of the mind to the truth, 
on the conviction produced by the 
force or authority of evidences. There 
is, substantially, no difference between 
this position and that of Rome. The premises 
are the same, and they differ only with respect 
to the kind of evidence or authority, which 
is accepted as credible and satisfactory. In 
both cases faith is assent to an established 
truth, established by recognized authority. Ac- 
cording to Mercersburg theology, faith is the 
apprehension of a self-evident truth, that re- 
quires no proof or authority beyond itself. The 
result on the heart and mind is not the same. 
In the one case a moral certainty is established ; 



80 



MERCERSBUHG AND 



in the other an absolute certainty. This impor- 
tant difference lies, primarily, in the nature of 
things and our relation to them. 

Facts that surround us, and with which we 
have to deal, are of two kinds, — transient and 
continuous. The truth of the former is far more 
difficult to reach than that of the latter. Ex- 
isting but for a time, and often but momentari- 
ly, transient facts are evident to but few, who 
can bear testimony in reference to them; while 
continuous facts are permanently evident to all 
who take the trouble to examine them. Hence 
the truth of the former has to be established 
by evidence, while the latter do not require this, 
being self-evident. We shall give an example 
of both, and then see how they apply to the 
greatest of all facts — Christianity. 

" John struck Peter." This declaration as- 
sumes one of those transient facts, which require 
to be established by proof or evidence, before 
its truth can be assented to by the mind. As a 
mere proposition or assertion, we can neither 
believe it nor reject it. It may be or may not 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



81 



be true, that John did so bad a thing as to strike 
Peter. Who knows? James and Isaac know, 
who saw it; and they testify to its truth. As 
they are credible witnesses, we accept their tes- 
timony as evidence, and on the strength or au- 
thority of it, believe that John did commit the 
assault on Peter. There is a reasonable and 
moral certainty established that such is the fact, 
and the criminal law adjudges him guilty, and 
the moral law approves the finding. 

But we, who hear and believe this testimony, 
and join in the verdict, have not that certitude 
of the fact, which would enable us to venture 
our salvation on its truth, by taking an oath 
that John did strike Peter. There is no rea- 
sonable doubt that he did. We are morally 
certain of it, on the authority of unquestionable 
testimony; but there is no absolute certainty 
established ; and no amount of evidence can do 
this. It is not in the nature of proof or evi- 
dence to do it. The moral or reasonable cer- 
tainty reached by such a process, can never, of 
itself, or by any amount of additional proof, 

6 



82 



MERCERSBURG AND 



rise to absolute certainty. When you come to 
define it, it is, and never can be any thing more 
than, belief. Only those who Jcnow that John 
struck Peter (the witnesses in the case), have 
an absolute certainty of the'fact ; and they did 
not get their knowledge of the fact by any such 
a process. 

Hence it is that human judgment and courts 
of justice are liable to err, even when declara- 
tions are established beyond all reasonable 
doubt. They Jcnow nothing of the facts them- 
selves, but judge according to the evidence in 
the case. But all things are known to God, 
and, therefore, there can be no error in His 
judgment. He stands so immediately related 
to all things by His omnipresence, that He 
Himself is witness to them, even the secret 
thoughts and intentions of the heart. 

We know nothing but what is, or can be made 
self-evident to us, and only those, to whom the 
truth is thus known in any case, are competent 
to bear testimony to the truth, A man who 
would present himself as a witness, that John 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



83 



struck Peter, because he heard others say so, or 
swear to it, would be laughed at and sent about 
his business. 

This is but a simple case, but it illustrates an 
important principle. It shows us the nature of 
evidences, and what they can and what they cannot 
establish ; — that by their means we can come to a 
belief, but not to a knowledge of the truth; and 
that, unless we possess this knowledge by reach- 
ing it in some other way, we are not qualified to 
bear witness to the truth. But let us consider 
the next case. 

"The sun shines.' 9 This is not a transient, 
but a continuous fact. The sun shone in the 
days of the Apostles, and it shines in our days. 
If needs be, the truth of this can be established 
by evidence; because there are credible witnesses 
who can testify to the fact. As clear a case can 
be made out in this way as the one we have just 
considered, to say the least of it. But it needs 
no proof. It is not on trial before a court and 
jury; and if it be, we do not wait to hear their 
verdict, whether it shines or not. We know it, 



84 



MERCERSBURG AND 



and in advance of all such proceedings, and all 
arguments and reasoning on the subject. We 
know it, because it is self-evident to all who will 
open their eyes and look at it. A man who has 
no eyes, or who has them, but cannot see, must, 
of course, accept it on the testimony or autho- 
rity of others. On the strength of that, he may 
believe, but does not know that the sun shines. 
Such mere evidence, or mere authority and be- 
lief, does not give eyes to the blind. It does 
the poor man no good. It does not open his 
eyes, and enable him to see the sun; which is 
the necessary condition on which the sun can be 
of any benefit to him. 

Here, then, we have the two cases before us. 
The first is a case, the truth of which is accepted 
on the simple authority of those, who are ad- 
mitted to know the facts; or by submitting the 
case to a regular process of examination into the 
evidences, on which its truth can be established ; — 
but all of which leads nobody to a knowledge of 
the truth. The other is a case, in which every 
body who will, can come to a knowledge of the 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 85 

truth, in advance and independent of such a pro- 
cess. Both cases are equally clear, and a bare 
presentation of them is sufficient to make them 
self-evident to the mind. 

But how do these two cases apply to the great- 
est of all facts, Christianity ? 

To those who are for ever in search of the 
truth by the process indicated in the first case, 
the words, in a modified but true sense apply : 
"Ever learning, and never able to come to a 
knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. iii. 7. And the 
words: "If any man think that he knoweth any 
thing (by that process), he knoweth nothing yet 
as he ought to know." 1 Cor. viii. 2. 

To those who come to a knowledge of the truth 
on the principle indicated in the second case, the 
words of the Samaritans, addressed to a witness 
of Jesus, apply: "Now we believe, not because 
of thy saying : for we have heard him ourselves, 
and know that he is indeed the Christ, the Sa- 
viour of the world." John iv, 42. 

Christianity is not a transient fact, like the 
case of John and Peter; but a continuous and 



86 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



permanent fact, like that of the sun, or the ever- 
lasting hills. As such its truth can be esta- 
blished on the authority of the most unquestion- 
able evidences ; but its truth does not rest and 
depend on any kind or any amount of mere evi- 
dences ; but is open to the immediate apprehen- 
sion of *all who come to stand in immediate rela- 
tion to it, and bring with them the power of ap- 
prehending it — faith — to which it is self-evident 
on its bare presentation. 

We have already admitted that a clear case 
can be established, that the sun shone in the 
days of the Apostles, and that it shines to this 
day, by any amount of credible testimony. So 
has the truth of Christianity been proved a thou- 
sand times beyond all reasonable doubt, as much 
so as any other truth has ever been established 
by evidence. And in the absence of any evi- 
dence to the contrary, the man, who pretends to 
deny it, is either a fool or a knave. He cannot, 
as a sane and an honest man, even deny the truth 
that John struck Peter, after hearing the testi- 
mony in the case. He is compelled to believe it. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



8T 



But this is not exactly what is wanted, and 
not the kind of faith which Christianity demands 
and calls for, and which the preaching of the 
gospel (the bare presentation or proclamation of 
its truth) is intended to produce. A man wants 
to know for himself, that the sun shines, without 
which the sun can be of no benefit to him. All 
the authority, and testimony and argument in 
the world do not give him that knowledge of the 
fact, which a single glance at the sun would 
afford. The knowledge of the truth for which 
the soul longs and desires, is not obtained by 
any such a process of heaping evidence upon 
evidence from reason, from Scripture, from his- 
tory, or from any where else. It is only ob- 
tained by being brought into immediate relation 
to the truth itself. The faith which apprehends 
Christianity as absolutely true, is not the cold 
intellectual assent of the mind, which is given in 
the case of John and Peter ; but the exercise of 
a. perceptive power, to which that truth becomes 
self-evident ; and by which we know even more 
certainly that it is the truth, than James m& 



88 



MERCERSBURG AND 



Isaac know that John struck Peter, or than any 
one of us knows, that the sun shines, from the 
evidences of our senses. 

Mere belief, such as we have seen to result 
from evidence of proof in the case of John and 
Peter, or in the case of the blind man, who be- 
lieves that the sun shines on the authority and 
testimony of others, — is not faith, that myste- 
rious power in man, which apprehends the spi- 
ritual and invisible, and which gives us a greater 
certitude even than the evidences of our senses. 
We know that the sun shines, which is external 
and visible to the eye ; but we know still more 
certainly, that we possess an internal and invisi- 
ble power, which enables us to see the sun, and 
to discern it, and to know, that what is thus 
taken in by the senses, is not a delusion, a vision 
and a dream. By means of the eye, as the or- 
gan of the power of vision, we see the sun shine. 
By means of something lying back of that power, 
we know that it shines. That power we call 
faith (or if you prefer the term, our higher rea* 
son), the ultimate ground to which all our know- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



89 



ledge must be referred. Even the second-hand 
or indirect knowledge gained in the case of John 
and Peter, and the whole process of reasoning 
required to reach it, rest ultimately on faith; 
existing both in the witnesses, who testify on 
oath, and in the judges in the case, who have 
faith in the validity of that oath. Without faith 
in the credibility of witnesses, or faith in the 
premises, nothing can be proved, nothing esta- 
blished even to a reasonable certainty. All 
would be doubt and confusion. Reason itself 
would be dethroned. Courts of justice and equity 
would cease to exist, and the whole social fabric 
would fall to pieces, for the want of that binding 
force which holds it together, that mysterious 
power, faith, the foundation of reason itself, the 
ground and life-spring of all its powers and acti- 
vities. 

Christianity is an object of faith in the sense 
here presented. Its glorious truth can only be 
known and be of any real benefit to man, when 
apprehended as self-evident to faith ; as in the 
case of the sun, which can be of benefit only to 



90 



MERCERSBURG AND 



those who see it. Without the absolute certainty 
of its truth, which faith in it implies, its light 
would not be a guide to our feet. We would be, 
spiritually, in the condition of the blind man, 
and could not, from our knowledge of its truth, 
bear witness and proclaim, that Christianity is 
the true religion ; that Christ is the Saviour of 
the world; that he is the Son of God. Our con- 
viction, derived from mere testimony, would not 
enable us to do this. James and Isaac, on the 
contrary, do not hesitate to declare, that John 
struck Peter, and do not hesitate for a moment 
to venture their salvation on its truth, by taking 
a solemn oath to that effect — and why? Be- 
cause they know it to be the truth. But the 
mere lawyer, the judge and the jury, cannot do 
this. They cannot thus venture their salvation 
on the conviction and knowledge of the truth 
from evidence alone, however strong and unques- 
tionable the authority may be, on which the evi- 
dences rest. And how could a Christian minis- 
ter and a Christian people venture their salva- 
tion on the truth of Christianity, if they did not 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



91 



know more about it, than such mere evidences 
afford? Christianity itself demands of us, to 
venture our salvation upon it, by accepting it as 
our only hope in life and death. But such a 
demand would neither be just nor reasonable, if 
the absolute certainty of its truth and reliability 
could not be gained: as little as it would be just 
and reasonable to allow a man to take a solemn 
oath, that John struck Peter, who was not, from 
his own personal knowledge, absolutely certain 
that such was the fact. The ground of our hope, 
upon which we can venture our salvation, must 
be susceptible of becoming absolutely certain and 
reliable. Those who venture into the eternal 
world without this certitude, go into it blind, and 
will remain ingulfed in darkness for evermore. 
Their belief, which did them no good in this life, 
will do them no good in the world to come. It 
failed to lead them to a knowledge of the truth 
here ; it will fail to do so hereafter. 

All who can bear testimony to the truth, that 
the sun shines, are living witnesses, at the same 
time, that all vi ho will exercise their power of 



92 



MERCERSBURG AND 



vision, can know it for themselves. The wit- 
nesses of Jesus, in all ages, have testified to the 
same thing in reference to our holy Christianity. 
The writings of the Apostles are full of it ; the 
martyrs for the truth have joyfully sealed it 
w'th their blood; the dying saints have triumph- 
antly confessed it; every true minister of the 
gospel is a witness to its truth ; and all true be- 
lievers join with one accord in the confession of 
the Samaritans: "Now we believe, not because 
of thy saying ; for we have heard him ourselves, 
and know that this is indeed the Christ, the 
Saviour of the world.' ' 

Christianity is a fact; not a transient, but a 
continuous fact. As such, it is self-evident, not 
to every body, but to those who apprehend it by 
faith. We do not, therefore, claim for Chris- 
tianity any thing that is not included in the 
premises, when we say, that it is an object of 
faith. We make the same claim in favor of all 
other continuous facts. Faith in Christianity, 
while it does emphatically differ from mere 
natural belief, does not, in itself, differ from 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



93 



natural faith. Psychologically considered, faith 
is of the same nature, whether its object is the 
natural or the supernatural. By mere belief, 
we know literally nothing (as we ought to 
know). What little we do know (in the proper 
sense of the word), we know by faith, because 
it is apprehended as self-evident by faith, 
whether it comprehends a natural or a super- 
natural truth, both of which have their ultimate 
ground in God. We have no right to refuse 
our assent to, much less reject any thing, 
whether natural or supernatural, human or di- 
vinet, because, forsooth, we cannot arrive at an 
absolute certainty of its truth by the mere pro- 
cess and evidence of reason. Whether the truth 
of any thing is susceptible of becoming abso- 
lutely certain to us, depends upon whether it is 
susceptible of becoming self-evident. We have 
accordingly no right in the premises to reject 
the claim in favor of any fact which professes 
to be thus susceptible, and thus prejudge it in 
advance. In order to determine whether its 
claims are according to truth, we must test 



94 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



those claims. We must accordingly allow Chris- 
tianity to make what claims it pleases, and try it 
on the merits of those claims. It claims to be 
an object of faith; an object that is susceptible 
to become self-evident, and its truth and relia- 
bility to become absolutely certain. To test 
this claim fairly, we are bound in all honesty 
and sincerity to place ourselves into such imme- 
diate relation to it, by which it may, if true, be- 
come thus self-evident to faith. Millions upon 
millions have done this in godly sincerity and 
child-like simplicity, and all, with one accord, 
testify to its truth; while those who reject 
Christianity have never done this. Hence it is, 
that the truth of God is revealed to child-like 
faith, and not to the pride of human feason. If 
a-nybody wants to know to what straits infidels 
have been driven as their last resort, by the 
force of that higher reason which Christianity 
inspires and has wielded against their infidelity, 
it is enough to say, that they now reject the 
truth of Christianity for the same reason, that 
they reject the truth of every thing besides. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



95 



They professedly believe nothing, and conse- 
quently acknowledge that they know nothing. 
But how they happen to know even this, is as 
great a mystery as any thing they intend to 
deny; for the hardest passage of Scripture for 
an infidel to admit to be true, is that of their 
strongest antagonist, who says, in speaking of 
such pretenders to wisdom: "Professing them- 
selves to be wise, they became fools." And now, 
since infidels virtually admit this, it is time that 
infidelity and its trade be abandoned. Both 
have expended themselves. 



96 



MERCERSBUR3 AND 



CHAPTER TIL 



§ 25. — THE PULPIT — PREACHING. 

C CORDING to modern theology, as seen 
all along, every thing has to be proved 
v^Ln in order to produce what is mistaken for 




faith, belief. The preacher is accord- 
ingly in the position of the lawyer, 
whose business it is to state his case to the judg- 
ment of his audience, to furnish his evidences 
and argue the case, in order to produce convic- 
tion in the minds of those w x ho hear him. This 
being the great end and object of the Pulpit, he 
is educated and prepared mainly with a view of 
becoming an able minister in the sense here pre- 
sented. He is considered the ablest minister 
accordingly, who can compress the greatest in- 
tellectual treat into his sermon bearing on the 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



97 



truth of his proposition, which he strives to 
prove and establish, by all the evidences, the ar- 
guments and eloquence of an intellect of the 
first capacity — no matter whether a single word 
be addressed to faith and the heart, or not ; 
for it is not with the heart, but with the intel- 
lect that men believe unto righteousness, ac- 
cording to the theory of religion on which such 
preaching and its theology are based. Our 
higher spiritual nature is entirely ignored, and 
no attempt is made to present the gospel to its 
apprehension. 

According to Mercersburg theology, the true 
idea of preaching the gospel is, to proclaim it, 
not to prove it ; to let it speak for itself, not to 
defend it; to teach and explain it, not to declaim 
about it — in a word, to present it as self-evident 
to faith, to our higher spiritual nature, not to 
reduce it to the apprehension of the bare un- 
derstanding. The first great business of the 
preacher is to open the eyes of the blind — those 
spiritual eyes blinded by sin— by applying the 
gospel to them, until man wakes up to his proper 
7 



98 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



self-consciousness, which implies a consciousness 
of his higher spiritual nature: the God-con- 
sciousness within him : the consciousness of sin 
and guilt; the consciousness of the need of re- 
demption; the sense of justice, of holiness; the 
longing and desires of the heart for re-union and 
re-communion with God and the Paradise which 
is not found in the beggarly elements of this 
present world; — in other words, to lay open to 
him the higher law of his own nature, that 
speaks to him of his divine origin, of a God of 
justice, of righteousness, of a judgment to come, 
of the need of reconciliation, of pardon, ot re- 
demption, of longings for re-union with God and 
a world of future happiness ; — and then, in the 
second place, reveal to this higher nature — 
these opened spiritual eyes — the God in Christ, 
the story of the fall, the story of redemption, 
and the Paradise regained and re-established in 
the kingdom of Christ; — and show how fully the 
revelations and provisions of the gospel explain 
and meet all the wants, the desires and longings 
of that better, higher nature. The gcspel, thus 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



99 



applied and presented immediately to our spirit- 
ual nature, becomes self-evident to it, and is ap- 
prehended by faith, which gives us an absolute 
certainty of its truth, which no amount of evi- 
dence and argument addressed to the under- 
standing or logical reason, can ever produce. 

§ 26. — THE ALTAR. — WORSHIP. 

To awaken man to his proper self-consci- 
ousness, it is not enough to preach; but it is 
necessary also to pray, that (rod's Spirit may 
aid in the work ; for without Him we can do 
nothing. Hence, according to Mercersburg 
theology, the Altar, as well as the Pulpit, finds 
its appropriate place and significance in the 
house of God. In coming to hear the word 
preached, man must be made to feel that he is 
coming to the house of God, which is the house 
of prayer; and the more deeply he is im- 
pressed with this feeling, and the more solemnly 
the worship of God is conducted, and confession 
of sin and the Christian faith is made and de- 



100 



MERCERSBURG AND 



voutly responded to, the more deeply will he be 
affected by an invisible presence, that thus aids 
in awakening in him the slumbering conscious- 
ness of his own spiritual nature, by which he 
becomes better prepared to hear and receive 
the gospel addressed to him from the Pulpit. 
What is true here in reference to him who is yet 
out of Christ, is equally true of the Christian, 
who is to be built up in the faith and knowledge 
of the truth, by the same divinely appointed 
means. 

Modern theology, ignoring man's higher spi- 
ritual nature, is but consistent with itself, when 
it ignores the Altar and its solemn services, and 
puts it entirely out of the house of God ! What 
public worship there is, is done in the pulpit and 
the end gallery by a choir of undevout young 
people, who sing undevotional hymns to unde- 
votional tunes; and the prayer in the pulpit 
partakes of the undevotional smartness and in- 
tellectualism, which characterize the whole ser- 
vice, preaching and all. The singing, the pray- 
ing, the preaching, and the hearing are all by 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



101 



the understanding and for the understanding — 
not by the spirit and heart, and for them. Even 
the central idea of worship, the holy sacrament 
of the body and blood of Christ, is reduced to 
the same common level of the mere understand- 
ing. There is nothing in the whole service, from 
beginning to end, for immediate faith to lay hold 
upon. Every thing is calculated to produce be- 
lief, or something less valuable than that; but 
nothing is calculated to produce faith. 



§ 27. — THE KEYS. — DISCIPLINE. 

According to Mercersburg Theology, the 
ministry combines not only the prophetic and 
priestly, but also the kingly office of Christ, to 
which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are 
given for substantially the same purpose for 
which its prophetic and priestly functions are 
intended; namely, to bring men to a proper 
sense or consciousness of their relation to God, 
and divine and spiritual things. By virtue of 



102 



MERCERSBURG AND 



this office, the minister of Christ is clothed to 
speak and act with divine authority in rebuking 
sin and comforting believers. When exercised, 
as it ever should be, in the same spirit of an as- 
sured faith in which the prophetic and priestly 
functions are to be exercised and addressed, and 
applied to the same higher nature in man, it has 
an additional powerful effect to aid in awakening 
it to proper consciousness. How reviving and 
strengthening to the penitent's trembling faith, 
and comforting to the troubled spirit are, for 
instance, the solemnly uttered words of comfort 
and assurance coming from the lips of a minister 
of Christ, who speaks with conscious authority 
in the name of God. The Gospel of our salva- 
tion, thus applied to man's spiritual nature, by 
the proper exercise of the prophetic, priestly 
and kingly functions of the ministry, will prove 
"a power of God unto salvation to all them that 
believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." 

Modern theology has explained away all di- 
vine and immediate force in this function of the 
ministry, as well as in that of the others. Its 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



103 



exercise carries with it no immediate force to the 
conciousness of man. Its cold comfort addressed 
to the understanding and intelligence, does not 
reach and comfort the troubled spirit and heal 
the broken heart. Its intellectual comfort is 
nothing but untempered mortar, and the peni- 
tent and mourning soul leaves the house of God 
with no assurance of faith and no solid comfort, 
to seek it elsewhere the best way it can, or re- 
main without it. 



§ 28. — CONFIRMATION. 

According to Mercersburg theology, the rite 
of confirmation, or laying on of hands, is one of 
those ministerial acts, which is divinely intended 
to confirm and strengthen the faith of the be- 
liever. In baptism we are brought into cove- 
nant and gracious relation to God, and after the 
consciousness of this relation is properly devel- 
oped by the hearing of the word (catechisation), 
it is confirmed and ratified by the laying on of 
hands, as the completion of the rite of baptism, 



104 



MERCERSBURG AND 



as initiatory to full communion with the Church, 
and preparatory to admission to the Lord's table, 
all of which have the great object in view of 
awakening and strengthening a full assurance 
of faith or conscious union and communion with 
God in Christ Jesus. 

Modern theology is here again consistent with 
itself, when it rejects the rite of confirmation as 
useless. It adds nothing to strengthen mere 
belief. If faith is nothing more than an intel- 
lectual assent of the mind, then of course the 
Jaying on of hands has nothing to do in produc- 
ing or confirming it. But the same is equally 
true with regard to baptism and the Lord's sup- 
per. They do not and are not intended to pro- 
duce or confirm belief \ and might just as well be 
rejected as the Altar and the laying on of hands, 
for aught effect they have in convicting the mere 
understanding. To appreciate the sense and 
meaning of Confirmation, it must be viewed in 
the light of faith, as must every thing else con- 
nected with the Gospel. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



105 



According to modern theology and its prac- 
tical application, the reception or recognition of 
a person in full communion and membership 
with the Christian Church, is not to be per- 
formed and signalized by any solemn ministerial 
act, as carrying with it any spiritual force and 
meaning to the faith and consciousness of the 
person admitted. He is simply acknowledged 
as a full member of the Church on confession of 
his belief, so that it may be understood by al! 
whom it may concern, that he is entitled to all 
the rights and privileges of full membership. 
Here, again, all is simply for the understanding, 
and nothing for faith. His admission into the 
Church, has not brought him into a nearer or 
more conscious relation to Christ and the king- 
dom of God, than he had been in before. He has 
simply " joined the Church," as he would any 
other purely human association, and when he 
becomes tired of it, will " leave the Church" 
with as little conscious loss as he had of any 
conscious gain in " joining" it. 



106 



MERCERSBUKG AND 



§ 29. THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 

The witness of the Spirit, according to mo- 
dern theology, is supposed to supersede every 
thing else, to give us that full assurance of faith 
attainable in this life. It is something super- 
added to faith, by which we are divinely assured 
of being in a state of grace. This assumes, that 
faith does not in itself carry with it that divine 
assurance, which it of course does not, if faith 
be nothing more than belief. Hence what is 
wanted is not something to be superadded to 
faith, but faith itself ; the very thing on which 
Mercersburg theology insists. What is called 
the witness of the Spirit, is, after all, according 
to modern theology, nothing more than some- 
thing purely subjective, either of an intellectual 
or emotional nature; for it is simply absurd to 
speak of the witness of God's Spirit to our 
spirits, when it is denied that we have a spiritual 
nature. By " our spirit," nothing more is meant 
than our intellectual or emotional nature, and 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



107 



what is called the witness of the Spirit turns out, 
in most instances, to be nothing more than the 
natural reaction of that nature from a state of 
painful distress, into which it had been worked. 

According to Mercersburg theology, faith is 
itself the evidence or authentication of things 
not seen, and therefore carries within itself that 
divine assurance. The Spirit of Grod speaks in 
the Gospel of His Son, and in His sacred ordi- 
nances and the official acts of His ministers, im- 
mediately to oar spirits, and the apprehension of 
what God's Spirit witnesses and reveals to our 
spirits, that is faith. The witness of the Spirit 
is therefore not superadded to faith, but is the 
revelation of the Spirit of Truth to faith; not 
simply in reference to our being in a state of 
grace or our own immediate relation to God, but 
t Iso in reference to the whole truth of the gospel. 

In reference to our immediate relation to 
Christ, faith has been well defined as the Chris- 
tian self-consciousness, by which we know that 
we are Christians, with as much certainty as we 
know that we are human beings by our natural 



* 



108 



MERCERSBURG AND 



self-consciousness. That the awakening to a full 
consciousness of our gracious relation to God in 
Christ may be sudden, and be accompanied with 
unspeakable joy in the Holy Ghost, is not only 
true, but natural, when the transition from un- 
belief to faith, from darkness to light, is sudden, 
as was the case in the extraordinary conversion 
of St. Paul. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



109 



CHAPTER VIII. 



§ 30. — DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

s^)HE point of difference between modem 
^ and Mercersburg theology on this fun- 
& damental doctrine of Christianity, does 



not refer so much to the doctrine itself, 



^ as to its relation to faith and the evi- 
dence on which its truth is founded ; for which 
reason it here follows, and does not precede 
the consideration of the nature of faith and 
evidence. 

To establish the doctrine of the Trinity, we 
must, according to modern theology, rely exclu- 
sively on certain passages of Scripture, in which 
it is implied, or in which divine and distinct per- 
sonal attributes are ascribed to Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost. Being incomprehensible to the 
finite mind, its truth must be accepted on the 




110 



MERCERSBURG AND 



bare testimony of the Bible. Faith in the doc- 
trine of the Trinity is, therefore, nothing more 
than an assent of the mind on the strength of 
such testimony. A specious fallacy, which con- 
tains but a single truth to redeem it from being 
false throughout. That truth is its acknowledged 
mystery. 

According to Mercersburg theology, the doc- 
trine of the Trinity is every where presupposed 
in the New Testament, as resting primarily on 
a divine manifestation or revelation lying back 
of the written word, which refers to it but inci- 
dentally and impliedly, as existing objective truth 
already apprehended as self-evident to faith, and 
does not, therefore, labor to prove it, or even to 
state it in a direct and formal way. 

The Christian idea of the Trinity, like all 
other Christian ideas and truths, finds, in the 
first place, a basis in the constitution of the 
world's life, or in our own nature, which responds 
to and apprehends by faith as self-evident, the 
revealed fact of the Holy Trinity, as it does that 
of the incarnation or any other revealed truth, 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



Ill 



which are all alike incomprehensible to the mere 
understanding. 

The doctrine of the Trinity does not rest pri- 
marily on any passages of the Bible, from which 
alone its truth could be established. To find the 
full and proper evidence of this doctrine, we 
must go behind the written word, and find it in 
the self-evidencing itself, that God has man- 
ifested and continues to manifest himself as a 
Triune Being to the general life of humanity in 
the great work of the world's redemption, and 
which ever repeats itself to the consciousness in 
the experience and life of every individual Chris- 
tian or subject of that salvation. It is thus as 
much an object of faith, in the true and proper 
sense of the word, and not merely an object of 
doctrinal belief as any other divine and super- 
natural reality, the truth of which enters into 
the Christian consciousness, being apprehended 
as self-evident by faith. 

Modern theology rests on the same false as- 
sumption in regard to the Trinity, which it oc- 
cupies in regard to the Incarnation. Both facts 



112 



MERCERSBURG AND 



are made to hold a purely outside relation to the 
world's life and that of individuals, and do not 
enter into the constitution of that life in a real 
and living way to work out its salvation. Hence 
the evidence in favor of the doctrine depends 
equally on outside testimony alone, on the 
strength of which mere belief, at best, is attain- 
able. But our baptismal relation to God the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is in itself suffici- 
ent to set aside the false assumption of modern 
theology on this point. That relation is a solemn 
guarantee, that God enters into the work of our 
personal salvation as a Triune Being, and that 
he will reveal or manifest himself as such to the 
faith and consciousness of all, in whom the work 
of salvation is begun and carried forward to its 
completion. 

The relation here referred to corresponds with 
the original relation and divine image in which 
man was created. It held in reference to God 
as a Triune Being, the shadow and type of which 
still remain amidst the ruin of his fall, in the 
constitution of his own nature and the divinely 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 113 

appointed natural relations of his earthly life ; 
and when his right relation to God is again re- 
stored by the Christian salvation, it will be found 
to consist in a conscious and proper relation to 
God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, each of 
whom in unity have their peculiar work to do in 
the world's redemption, as well as in that of 
individuals. 

We accordingly find the manifestation or re 
velation of God as a Triune Being to the world's 
life, to fall into three grand world historical pe- 
riods, answering to the trinity of the world's own 
proper life. The manifestation of God the Father 
falls within the period of the world's childhood 
and youth, in which the parental and filial rela- 
tion between God and the race becomes manifest. 
The manifestation of God the Son falls in the 
central period of the world's history, at the point 
at which its life had reached its ripened natural 
manhood. It was then, and not before, that the 
Son of God himself became Man, — our Brother, 
and established the fraternal relation between 
himself and the race. The third and last grand 

8 



114 



MERCERSBURG AND 



period is that of the manifestation of God the 
Holy Ghost, by which the new race is brought 
into living union or marriage relation to God. 
The Trinity in our natural human life, and in 
our divinely appointed relations in life— the 
filial, the fraternal and the marriage relations — 
finds its true sense and meaning in our three- 
fold relations to God the Father, who adopts us 
as his children; to God the Son, who becomes 
our elder brother ; and to God the Holy Ghost, 
by whom our marriage relation to God is con- 
summated. All this enters into the conscious 
experience of the general, as well as the indivi- 
dual life of the race as redeemed through the 
Christian salvation, and hence we must seek in 
Christianity itself the proper evidence of the 
doctrine in question, and not in any thing lying 
outside of it and beyond it. 

§ 31. — THE DISTINCT PERSONALITIES. — THE 
ETERNAL S0NSHIP. 

Modern theology holds to the distinct person- 
alities, and that Christ is the natural and eternal 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



115 



Son of God, having a distinct personality from 
the Father. The truth of this doctrine, however, 
can be established only by the teachings of the 
Bible on evidences lying outside of Christianity, 
and consequently can challenge simply the assent 
of our judgment. It is thus left an object of 
speculation or belief, and not an object of faith, 
or absolute certainty. 

According to Mercersburg theology, the eter- 
nal sonship, or the distinct personality of the 
Son of God, is an object of faith or absolute 
certainty, as well as any other supernatural re- 
ality revealed to man. 

With regard to the distinct personality of the 
Father, there is no question among those who 
believe in a personal God. He is not only the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the na- 
tural and eternal Son of God, but he is unques- 
tionably also Our Father, by creation and adop- 
tion. As such He can never become any thing 
else to us ! He, our Father, can never become 
our Brother. In order that God may become 
our Brother, there must of necessity be a natural 



116 MERCERSBURG AND 

and eternal Son of Grod, as a distinct person 
from the Father. 

The truth of the distinct personality of the 
Son of God, therefore, finds its response in the 
constitution and necessity of our own nature, 
which is created for just such a fraternal as well 
as filial relation; the full sense and meaning of 
which is not realized, but simply foreshadowed 
by its relations to the creature in the sphere of 
our natural life. As a man's natural father is 
of necessity a distinct person from his brother, 
so God our Father, and God our Brother cannot 
be resolved simply into a different manifestation 
and relation of the same person, without involv- 
ing a figment and a contradiction repugnant to 
all right feeling implanted in our nature. To 
come to our right relation to God, as foresha- 
dowed in the constitution of our nature and the 
life of the world, we must learn to know and to 
love God, not simply as our Father, but also as 
our Brother, and not simply as Father and 
Brother, but enter into that higher and purer 
joy and love in that still closer and holier rela- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



117 



tion with God, which is typified by the marriage 
relation. This trinity of relations can only hold 
with a trinity of persons in the divine Being, to 
meet the demands and wants of our nature. The 
truth of the distinct personalities thus enters 
into the Christian consciousness, with the same 
full assurance of faith, as any other truth is ap- 
prehended by faith; amounting not simply to 
doctrinal belief, but to absolute certainty. 

In confirmation of what we have already said, 
we will yet add, that the whole truth here pre- 
sented rests ultimately in the nature of Gfod 
himself as revealed to us in the moral law, 
which is, at the same time, the law of our own 
nature, the law of love to God and Man. All 
the duties required by the law of love to our 
fellow men are comprehended in the filial, the 
fraternal and marriage, or parental relation, 
comprehending, at the same time, the whole of 
our life, reaching from childhood upwards, until it 
has itself ripened into parentage, and requiring 
the totality of all the powers of our being in its 
full and proper exercise. Love, in its first and 



118 



MERCERSBURG AND 



earliest form, exists as filial love, love to the 
authors of our being, the protectors and pre- 
servers of our life, who exercise towards us ne- 
cessarily, justly and rightfully parental authority, 
and in this relation prepare us for the higher 
relations and duties of life. Developed in a 
higher, freer and purer form, it exists as frater- 
nal love — love to our fellow beings, with whom 
we come to stand related as our brothers and 
equals. As a still higher, purer and holier af- 
fection, it is developed in the marriage and pa- 
rental relation, in which it reaches its highest 
degree of purity and perfection. But all this, 
after all, is but typical of something higher, the 
full sense and meaning of which is realized in 
our relation and love to God, who of necessity 
is a Triune Being to be the author of a being 
constituted like Man, and the Giver of a moral 
law, such as He has implanted in our nature. 

This higher sense and meaning of our natural 
life is being reached in the sphere of the Chris- 
tian life, which, though a higher order of life, is 
yet truly human, as well as divine, and therefore 



££.ODLRN THEOLOGY. 



119 



corresponding in all respects with the constitu- 
tion of our proper natural life ; and all the duties 
and privileges of the Christian life are compre- 
hended in corresponding relations, reaching from 
our spiritual childhood upwards, until we become 
men and fathers in Christ. In these several re- 
lations and stages of its development, our faith 
and love are evolved and characterized in their 
several degrees or stages of its progress. Our 
conscious fellowship is with the Father, and with 
the Son, and with the Holy Ghost ; but first 
with the Father, then with the Son, and then 
with the Holy Ghost. Each of these stages of 
the Christian consciousness — or of our faith 
and love — is peculiar and distinctive, and they 
determine the three prominent types of Chris- 
tianity, as these are found to exist in the actual 
life of individual Christians, and the life of the 
Christian Church. 

§ 32. — THE TRINITY AND THE CHURCH. 

Modern theology admits a certain kind of de- 
velopment of the Christian life, or growth in 



120 



MERCERSBURG AND 



the grace and knowledge of Christ, but it is in 
full accordance with its abstract idea of Chris- 
tianity and the Church, which is at all times and 
in all ages universally the same. The Church 
is not the embodiment of Christianity in any real 
way ; and consequently no account is made of 
its concrete and organic development under any 
form. The Catholic, the Lutheran and the Re- 
formed Churches, as such, are alike but human 
organizations, and not truly and really the pro- 
duct of the life of Christianity. They are on 
a par with any modern sect, that has sprung 
into existence at the will and dictation of a dis- 
contented party, without any historical neces- 
sity of any kind. 

We have already stated, that the fundamental 
idea of the constitution of our own nature, cor- 
responds with the fundamental idea of Christi- 
anity. That idea is the Trinity, which is fun- 
damental to the whole Christian life, no less than 
to the whole system of Christian doctrine. The 
different manifestations and types of Christianity 
in the Church, as well as in its individual mem- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 121 

bers, must therefore be reducible to this funda- 
mental idea. The facts in the case, which are 
patent to every one who will examine them, con- 
firm the correctness of this position. We ac- 
cordingly find, that as Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are distinct, and yet the one only true 
and eternal God, so the three great branches of 
the Christian Church, the Catholic, the Lutheran, 
and Reformed, are equally distinct and charac- 
teristic, and yet constitute the one true Church 
of God on earth. Each of them is truly and 
really the legitimate and historical product of 
the organic life of Christianity ; and the distinc- 
tive types of Christianity which they present, bear 
the impress of that distinction, which has its ulti- 
mate and fundamental ground in the Trinity ! 
The legalistic type of Catholic Christianity finds 
its prototype in the legalism of the ancient 
Church, under the dispensation of the Father ; 
the freer evangelical type of Lutheran Christi- 
anity finds its prototype in the faith and love of 
the disciples of Christ, whilst he was objectively 
present with them on earth, leaning on and trusting 



122 



MERCERSBURG AND 



in, as it does 5 the objective Christ — Christ on the 
Cross, Christ in the Word, and Christ in the 
Sacrament ; whilst the Reformed type finds its 
prototype in the more spiritual nature of early 
Christianity, making proper account of the ope- 
rations and witness of the Spirit, or the subjec- 
tive Christ, the Christ within us. In view of 
these fundamental characteristics, there is a true 
and profound meaning in calling the one the 
Church of the Father, the other the Church of 
the Son, and the other the Church of the Holy 
Ghost, and that these three are one. 

§ 33. — THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE. 

That this great fundamental doctrine of Chris- 
tianity — the Holy Trinity — is underlying the 
Christian Church in its actual historical devel- 
opment, and finds in it a most remarkable con- 
firmation, is self-evident to all who will simply 
glance at the actual facts in the case. It re- 
mains for the Church of the Future to realize 
their unity, as an equally important and neces- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



123 



sary historical process, and the guarantee for 
that future unity is precisely the , great under- 
lying fact of the presence of Grod in her as a 
Triune Being, who will present unto himself a 
Church without spot and blemish, in which the 
Catholic, the Lutheran, and Reformed idea and 
type of Christianity will complete each other, in 
that higher unity and perfection, which her tri- 
nitarian life will ultimately work out to com- 
pletion in a regular process of historical de- 
velopment ; — and when the intercessory prayer 
of the Saviour will yet be fully realized: "Holy 
Father, keep through thine own name those 
whom thou hast given me, that they all may be 
one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us, that the world 
may believe that thou hast sent me;" — and when 
the apostolic benediction ^uill enter fully into 
the consciousness of all believers : "The grace 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Jove of God 
(the Father) and the communion of the Holy 
Ghost, be with you all;" and when our un- 
doubted Christian faith will be universally re- 



124 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



sponded to in a deeper and profounder appre- 
hension of its glorious truths: "I believe in 
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven 
and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only begot- 
ten Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the 
Holy Q-host, born of the Virgin Mary ; suffered 
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and 
buried; He descended into hell; the third day 
He rose from the dead; He ascended into hea- 
ven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the 
Father Almighty; froi* thence he shall come to 
judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the 
Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the 
communion of saints, the remission of sins, the 
resurrection of the body, and the life everlast- 
ing. Amen." 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



125 



NOTES. 

1. Anthropology. — Locke's empiricism is 
older than Locke. It is the philosophy of the ab- 
stract understanding, underlying the thinking of 
men in all ages, who elevate and recognize the 
mere understanding as the judge in matters of 
faith and religion. Whether men are conscious 
of the fact, or willing to admit it or not, it is the 
empiricism as taught, not originated, by the Eng- 
lish philosophers, which underlies the thinking, 
as this meets us every w^here in modern theology. 
It meets us more or less clearly, at every point 
of contrast which we have instituted with that 
altogether different mode of thinking, which un- 
derlies Mercersburg theology, from first to last. 
It meets us in the fact, that modern theology 
reverses the order of faith and knowledge; that 
it admits no premises; that it proceeds without 
faith in any thing ; that it refuses to accept the 
Creed as a starting-point; that it professes to 
get its faith fresh from the Bible, &c. If this 
be not the position of modern theology, then 



126 



MERCERSBURGr AND 



what is it? What other faith, either objective 
or subjective, has it, from which it proceeds? 
What are the admitted premises, or self-evident 
truths from which it starts? It has none other, 
and lays claim to none other. It proceeds on 
Locke's false assumption, that it must and can 
prove every thing by outside evidence. What- 
ever has become of Locke's philosophy among 
philosophers, it is still the underlying principle 
of the modern theological habit of thought. That 
Locke has been superseded by other philosophers, 
either for the worse or the better, decides nothing 
in regard to the question, What philosophy un- 
derlies modern theology? Theology is not re- 
constructed every decade, to suit itself to every 
new system of philosophy that starts into exist- 
ence. Locke's system will never cease to be the 
controlling principle and habit of modern think- 
ing, as long as the bare understanding is recog- 
nized as the umpire in matters of faith and re- 
ligion. 

2. Federal Headship. — We did not, and do 
not deny, that modern theology teaches a certain 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



127 



kind of federal headship of Christ ; but it is in 
full accordance with its peculiar views of Chris- 
tianity on other points. It resolves the federal 
headship of Christ into a mere abstraction. Ap- 
prehending Christ as a mere individual, he be- 
comes the surety in law for a race that stands 
outside of him, and to which he stands related 
in the constitution of his own person simply as 
an individual, and not as its actual source and 
fountain. According to Mercersburg theology, 
Christ is the federal head of the race by virtue 
of what he is in the constitution and law of his 
own person, as the actual source and fountain of 
the race as redeemed in him. It is only thus 
that an actual parallel is established between 
the first and the second Adam, and that the one 
can take the law place of the other. The at- 
tempt to establish a parallel between them, by 
resolving the federal headship of the first pro- 
genitor of the race into a similar abstraction, is 
in contradiction to the fact, that Adam's sin is 
imputed to his posterity, because they are actual- 
ly involved in it, by virtue of their having been 



128 



MERCERSBURG AND 



comprehended in his person when he sinned and 
fell. The idea is a mere figment, that Adam 
entered into a covenant with a law outside of the 
constitution of his own person, in order to com- 
promit his posterity in any thing ; nor could the 
justice of the law accept any such arbitrary and 
abstract arrangement. Adam has not made, and 
was not capable of making, such a covenant for 
his posterity. He sinned and fell, and in doing 
so, he not simply violated the objective law, but 
the law of his own being, and thus involved his 
posterity in the ruin of his fall, and its conse- 
quences. 

3. Partaking of the Humanity of Christ. — 
It is claimed in favor of modern theology, that 
it does not repudiate as obsolete the doctrine 
that believers partake of the humanity of Christ, 
because it teaches that believers have part in his 
Spirit. But who does not know, that it so sepa- 
rates the two, as to teach that we can have part 
in his Spirit, without having part in his huma- 
nity? That w© cannot have part in his Spirit, 
without at the same time partaking of his huma- 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



129 



nity, is what Mercersburg theology, and not 
what modern theology teaches. 

4. Justification. — The attempt is futile to 
prove, that modern theology agrees with Mer- 
cersburg theology in its teaching in regard to 
justification. As long as it is denied, that we 
have part in the humanity of Christ, justifica- 
tion on account of his merits is a mere abstrac- 
tion, an outward imputation, without any parti- 
cipation in them in fact: no difference how men 
may word their language to express it, by which 
they only deceive themselves and others. If 
modern theology teaches that we have part in 
Christ's humanity, why does it not say so ; why 
not speak it out in plain and unmistakable lan- 
guage? The reason is, because it does not be- 
lieve, nor teach any thing of the kind. 

5. Our Reviewer. — The foregoing notes co- 
ver the ground so far as a writer in the Messen- 
ger, whom we take to be Dr. B., thought proper 
to review our articles. With those notes ap- 
pended and read in connection with the series, 
we submit whether any of the Reviewer's excep- 

9 



130 



MERCERSBTJRG AND 



tions are well taken, and whether he was justi- 
fiable in displaying his want of courtesy towards 
us personally. We think, that as a gentleman, 
he owes us, as well as the Church, an apology, 
for the spirit and manner which he allowed him- 
self to betray. 

We would here take occasion to say, that our 
object, in writing this treatise, was not to pro- 
voke a newspaper controversy. Our object was 
stated in the introduction ; but if any one, who 
took exceptions to any part of it, when it first 
appeared in the columns of the Messenger, would 
have been kind enough to point out any actual 
misrepresentations, we would have been thank- 
ful for the correction, because we had contem- 
plated its publication in a more permanent form, 
and would have been glad to correct any thing 
that was founded on a misconception of the actual 
truth which we have endeavored to present. But 
our Reviewer has failed to convince us that any 
of his exceptions were well taken; nor do we 
think that he himself, on reflection, can be of 
that opinion. 



MODERN THEOLOGY. 



131 



We would, in conclusion, simply remind our 
Reviewer, that his charges of misrepresentations, 
&c, if well founded, hold against Dr. Hodge and 
other champions of modern theology, rather than 
against us. Get these gentlemen to say, that 
there is no difference between modern and Mer- 
cersburg theology on the points contrasted in 
our articles ! No, they are much too consistent 
to do any thing of the kind. If they are ever 
convinced of the truth of Mercersburg theology, 
which they have been combating, they will not, 
we trust, set up the claim, that they and their 
system of theology have been teaching the same 
thing all along; nor can we see how any minis- 
ter of our Church will exalt himself in their 
opinion, who will forget himself and what is due 
to his own Church, so far as to do it foe them ! 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process,, 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



